Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:02:09.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Formalisation of Weak Normalisation (with Respect to Permutations) of Sequent Calculus Proofs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2010

A.A. Adams
A.A. Adams
Affiliation:
Division of Computer Science, School of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews KYI6 9SS, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Dyckhoff and Pinto present a weakly normalising system of reductions on derivations are characterised as the fixed points of the composition of the Prawitz translations into natural deduction and back. This paper presents a formalisation of the system, including a proof of the Weak normalisation property for the formalisation. More details can be found in earlier work by the author. The formalisation has been kept as closes as possible to the original presentation to allow an evaluation of the state of proof assistance for such methods, and to ensure similarity of methods, and not merely similarly of results. The formalisation is restricted to the implicational fragment of intuitionistic logic.

Type
Research Article
Information
LMS Journal of Computation and Mathematics , Volume 3 , 2000 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © London Mathematical Society 2000

References

1. Adams, A.A., ‘Tools and Techniques for Machine-Assisted Meta-Theory’, PhD Thesis, school of Mathematical and Computational Science, University of St Andrews, UK, 1997.Google Scholar
2. Altenkirch, TH., ‘A formasation of the strong normalisation proof for System F in LEGO’, Typed lambda calculus and applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 664 (ed., Bezem, M. and Groote, J.F., Springer-Verlag, 1993) pp. 13–28.Google Scholar
3. Barras, B., ‘Coq en Coq’, Tech. Rep. 3026, INRIA(1996).Google Scholar
4. Barras, B., Boutin, S., Cornes, C., Courant, J., Filliatre, J.C., Giménez, E., Herbelin, H., Huet, G., Muñoz, C., Murthy, C., Parent, C., Paulin, C., Saïbi, A. and Werner, B., ‘The Coq Proof assistant Reference Manual (Version 6.1)’, Tech. Rep., INRIA, 1996. Available on-line with the Coq distribution from ftp://ftp.inria.fr.Google Scholar
5. Bundy, A. and Lombart, V., ‘Relational rippling: a general approach’, Proceedings, 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ed., Mellish, C., IJCAI, 1995) 175–181.Google Scholar
6. Bundy, A., Stevens, A., Van Harmelen, F., Ireland, A. and Smaill, A., ‘Rippling: a heuristic for guiding inductive proofs’, Artificial Intelligence (1993) 185–253.Google Scholar
7. Constable, R.L., Allen, S.F. and Others, Implementing Mathematics with the NuPrl proof development system (Prentice-Hall, 1986).Google Scholar
8. Coquand, C., From semantics to rules: a machine assisted analysis, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 832 (Springer-Verlag, 1993) 91–105.Google Scholar
9. Coquand, TH. and Huet, G., Constructions: a higher order proof system for mecha nizing Mathematics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 203 (Springer-Verlag, 1985) 151–184Google Scholar
10. Bruijn, N.G.De, ‘λ-calculus notation with nameless dummies, a tool for automatic formula manipulation’, Indag. Math 34 (1972) 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Bruijn, N.G.DE, A survey of the project AUTOMATH (Academic Press, 1980) 579–606.Google Scholar
12. Despeyroux, J., Felty, A. and Hirschhowitz, A., Higher-order abstract syntax in Coq Lecture Notes in Computer Science 902 (Springer-Verlag, 1995). 124–138.Google Scholar
13. Dybjer, P., Nordström, B. and Smith, J. (eds), Types for proofs and programs, Proceedings, International Workshop TYPES '94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Springer-Verlag, 1994).Google Scholar
14. Dyckhoff, R., ‘Contraction-free sequent calculi for intuitionistic logic’, J. Symbolic Logic 57 (1992) 795–807.Google Scholar
15. Dyckhoff, R. and Pinto, L., ‘A permutation-free sequent calculus for intuitionistic logic’, Tech. Rep. CS/96/9, University of St Andrews, 1996.Google Scholar
16. Dyckhoff, R. and Pinto, L., ‘Cut-elimination and Herbelin's sequent calculus for intuitionistic logic’, Studia Logica 60 (1998) 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Dyckhoff, R. and Pinto, L., ‘Permutability of proofs in intuitionistic sequent calculi’, Theoret. Comput. Sci 212 (1999) 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Felty, A., A logic program for transforming sequent proofs to natural deduction proofs, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 475 (Springer-Verlag, 1989) 157–178.Google Scholar
19. Fiore, M., Plotkin, G. and Turi, D., ‘Abstract syntax and variable binding’, Proceedings, 14th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (ed. Longo, G., IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, 1999).Google Scholar
20. Gabbay, M.J. and Pitts, A.M., ‘A new approach to abstract syntax involving binders’, Proceedings, 14th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (ed. Longo, G., IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, 1999)Google Scholar
21. Galmiche, D. and Perrier, G., ‘On proof normalisation in linear logic’, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 135 (1994) 67–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Gentzen, G., ‘Investigations into logical deduction’ The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen (Translated from 1934 original in German), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (ed.Szabo, M.E., North-Holland, 1969) 68–131.Google Scholar
23. Giminez, E., ‘Codifying guarded definitions with recursive schemes’, Types for proofs and programs, Proceedings, International Workshop TYPES '94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (ed. Dybjer, P., Nordström, B. and Smith, J., Springer-Verlag, 1994) 39–59.Google Scholar
24. Gordon, A.D. and Melham, T., ‘Five axioms of alpha-conversion‘, Theorem proving in higher order logics, Proceedings, 9th International Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1125 (ed. Wright, J. von, Grundy, J. and Harrison, J., Springer-Verlag, 1996) 173–190.Google Scholar
25. Gordon, M.J.C. and Melham, T.F. (eds), Introduction to HOL (Cambridge University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
26. Herbelin, H., A λ-calculus structure isomorphic to Gentzen-style sequent calculus structure, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 933 (Springer-Verlag, 1994) 61–75.Google Scholar
27. Huet, G., ‘Residual theory in λ-calculus: a complete Gallina development’, J. Funct. Programming 3 (1994) 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Huet, G. and Plotkin, G. (eds), Logical frameworks (Cambridge University Press, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Huet, G. and Plotkin, G. (eds), Logical environments (Cambridge University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
30. Kleene, S.C., ‘Permutability of inferences in Gentzen's calculi LK and LJ’, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. (1952) 1–26.Google Scholar
31. Klop, J.W., Term rewriting systems (Oxford University Press, 1992) 1–116.Google Scholar
32. Leivant, D., ‘Assumption classes in natural deduction’, Zeitschrift fur Math. Logik 25 (1979) 1–4.Google Scholar
33. Löf, P. Martin-, Intuitionistic type theory (Bibliopolis, 1984).Google Scholar
34. McKinna, J. and Pollack, R., ‘Pure type systems formalized’, Typed lambda calculus and applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 664 (ed. Bezem, M. and Groote, J. F., Springer-Verlag, 1993) 289–305.Google Scholar
35. Mckinna, J.H. and Pollack, R., ‘Some type theory and lambda calculus formalised’, J. Automat. Reason., Special Issue on Formal Proof, (ed. Pfenning, F., 23 (1999) 373–409.Google Scholar
36. Mints, G., ‘Cut-elimination and normal forms of sequent derivations’, Tech. Rep. CSLI-94-193, Stanford University, 1994.Google Scholar
37. Mints, G., Normal forms for sequent derivations (A. K. Peters, Wellesley, MA, 1996) 469–492.Google Scholar
38. Nazareth, D. and Nipkow, T., ‘Formal verification of Algorithm W: the monomorphic case’, Theorem proving in higher order logics, Proceedings, 9th International Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1125 (ed. Wright, J. von, Grundy, J. and Harrison, J., Springer-Verlag, 1996) 331–345.Google Scholar
39. Mohring, C. Paulin-, ‘Inductive definitions in the system Coq. Rules and properties’, Typed lambda calculus and applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 664 (ed. Bezem, M. and Groote, J.F., Springer-Verlag, 1993) 328–345.Google Scholar
40. Pfenning, F., ‘Logic programming in the LF logical framework’, Logical environments (ed. Huet, G. and Plotkin, G., Cambridge University Press, 1993) 149–181.Google Scholar
41. Pfenning, F., ‘A structural proof of cut elimination and its representation in a logical framework’, Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-94-218, Carnegie Mellon University (1994).Google Scholar
42. Pfenning, F. and Rohwedder, E., Implementing the meta-theory of deductive systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 607 (Springer-Verlag, 1992) 537–551.Google Scholar
43. Prawitz, D., ‘Natural deduction’, Ph.D. thesis, Acta Universitatis Stockholmensis, 1965.Google Scholar
44. Saïbi, A., ‘Formalization of a λ-calculus with explicit substitutions in Coq’, Types for proofs and programs, Proceedings, International Workshop TYPES '94, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (ed. Dybjer, P., Nordström, B. and Smith, J., Springer-Verlag, 1994) 183–202.Google Scholar
45. Schwichtenberg, H., ‘Termination of permutative conversions in intuitionistic Gentzen calculi’, Theoretical Comput. Sci. 212 (1999) 247–260.Google Scholar
46. Shanker, N., Metamathematics, machines, and Gödel's proof Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science (Cambridge University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
47. Szabo, M. E. (ed.), The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen (Translated from 1934 original in German), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (North-Holland, 1969).Google Scholar
48. Troelstra, A. S. and Schwichtenberg, H., Basic proof theory (Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
49. van Benthem Jutting, L. S., McKinna, J. and Pollack, R., ‘Checking algorithms for pure type systems’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 806 (Springer-Verlag, 1994) 19–61.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

JCM 3 Adams Appendix A

Adams Appendix A

Download JCM 3 Adams Appendix A(File)
File 103.2 KB