Mechanizing metatheory in a logical framework

Journal of Functional Programming

Volumn 17, Issue 4-5, 2007, Pages 613-673

  Harper, Robert ^a   Licata, Daniel R ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANONICAL FORM; DEDUCTIVE SYSTEMS; LOGICAL FRAMEWORKS; MECHANICAL VERIFICATION; META-THEOREMS; MODULAR REASONING; NORMAL FORM; PARAMETERIZED;

ENCODING (SYMBOLS);

CALCULATIONS;

EID: 34547812627     PISSN: 09567968     EISSN: 14697653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0956796807006430     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (60)

1. Acar, U. A., Blume, M. & Donham, J. (2007) A consistent semantics of self-adjusting computation. In European Symposium on Programming. New York: Springer-Verlag.
2. Anderson, P. & Pfenning, F. (2004) Verifying uniqueness in a logical framework. In Slind, K., Bunker, A. & Gopalakrishnan, G. (eds), International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3223. Berlin: Springer, pp. 18-33.
3. Appel, A. W. (2001) Foundational proof-carrying code. In IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, p. 247.
4. Appel, A. W. & Felty, A. P. (2002) Dependent types ensure partial correctness of theorem provers. J. Funct. Programming 14(1), 3-19.
5. Appel, A. & Leroy, X. (2006) A list-machine benchmark for mechanized metatheory. In International Workshop on Logical Frameworks and Meta-Languages: Theory and Practice. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 95-108.
6. Avron, A., Honsell, F. & Mason, I. A. (1989) An overview of the Edinburgh Logical Framework. In Current Trends in Hardware Verification, Birtwistle, G. & Subrahmanyam, P. A. (eds). Elsevier, New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 323-340.
7. Aydemir, B. E., Bohannon, A., Fairbairn, M., Foster, J. N., Pierce, B. C., Sewell, P., Vytiniotis, D., Washburn, G., Weirich, S., & Zdancewic, S. (2005) Mechanized metatheory for the masses: The POPLmark challenge. In International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 50-65.
8. Bertot, Y. & Castéran, P. (2004) Interactive theorem proving and program development: Coq'art: The calculus of inductive constructions. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. New York: Springer.
9. Cervesato, I. & Pfenning, F. (2002) A linear logical framework. Inf. Comput. 179(1), 19-75.
10. Cervesato, I., Pfenning, F., Walker, D. & Watkins, K. (2002) A Concurrent Logical Framework II: Examples and Applications. Tech. rept. CMU-CS-02-102. Pittsburgh PA: Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Revised May 2003.
11. Constable, R. L., Allen, S. F., Bromley, H. M., Cleaveland, W. R., Cremer, J. F., Harper, R. W., Howe, D. J., Knoblock, T. B., Mendler, N. P., Panangaden, P., Sasaki, J. T. & Smith, S. F. (1986) Implementing Mathematics With the NuPRL Proof Development System. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Coq Development Team. (2007) The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual. INRIA. Available at: http://coq.inria.fr/. Accessed June, 2007.
13. Coquand, T. (1991) An algorithm for testing conversion in type theory. In Logical Frameworks, Huet, G. & Plotkin, Gordon D. (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp 255-279.
14. Crary, K. (2003) Toward a foundational typed assembly language. ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages.Pittsburgh, PA: ACM Press, pp. 198-212.
15. Crary, K. & Sarkar, S. (2003) Foundational certified code in a metalogical framework. In International Conference on Automated Deduction. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 106-120.
16. de Bruijn, N. G. (1993) Algorithmic definition of lambda-typed lambda calculus. In Logical Environment. Huet, G. & Plotkin, G. D. (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131-145.
17. Felty, A. (1991) Encoding dependent types in an intuitionistic logic. In Logical Frameworks, Huet, G. & Plotkin, G. D. (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 214-251.
18. Fluet, M., Morrisett, G. & Ahmed, A. (2006) Linear regions are all you need. In European Symposium on Programming. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 7-21.
19. Garg, D. & Pfenning, F. (2006) Non-interference in constructive authorization logic. In Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pp. 183-293.
20. Geuvers, H. (1992) The Church-Rosser property for βη-reduction in typed λ-calculi. In Scedrov, A. (ed), IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press, pp. 453-460.
21. Goguen, H. (1999) Soundness of the logical framework for its typed operational semantics. In International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1581. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 177-197.
22. Harper, R. & Pfenning, F. (2005) On equivalence and canonical forms in the LF type theory. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 6, 61-101.
23. Harper, R., Honsell, F. & Plotkin, G. (1993) A framework for defining logics. J. Associ. Comput. Mach. 40(1), 143-184.
24. Harrison, J. (1996) HOL Light: A tutorial introduction. In Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1166. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 265-269.
25. Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P. & Moore, J S. (2000) Computer-Aided Reasoning: An Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Now part of Springer.
26. Klein, G. & Nipkow, T. (2006) A machine-checked model for a Java-like language, virtual machine and compiler. ACM Trans. Programming Lang. Sys. 28(4), 619-695.
27. Lee, D. K., Crary, K. & Harper, R. (2007) Towards a mechanized metatheory of Standard ML. In ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. New York: ACM Press, pp. 173-184.
28. Leroy, X. (2006) Formal certification of a compiler back-end, or: Programming a compiler with a proof assistant. In ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. New York: ACM Press, pp. 42-54.
29. Licata, D. R. & Harper, R. (2005) A Formulation of Dependent ML With Explicit Equality Proofs. Tech. rept. CMU-CS-05-178. Pittsburgh, PA: Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
30. Michaylov, S. & Pfenning, F. (1991) Natural semantics and some of its meta-theory in Elf. In International Workshop on Extensions of Logic Programming, Eriksson, L. H., Hallnäs, L. & Schroeder-Heister, P. (eds). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 596. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 299-344.
31. Miculan, M. (1997) Encoding Logical Theories of Programs, Ph.D. thesis. Pisa, Italy: Dipartimento di Informatica, Universita di Pisa.
32. Murphy VII, T., Crary, K., Harper, R. & Pfenning, F. (2004) A symmetric modal lambda calculus for distributed computing. In Ganzinger, H. (ed). IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. Los Alamitas, CA: IEEE Press, pp. 286-295.
33. Murphy VII, T., Crary, K. & Harper, R. (2005) Distributed control flow with classical modal logic. In Computer Science Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3634. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 51-69.
34. Nanevski, A. & Morrisett, G. (2006) Dependent type theory of stateful higher-order functions. Tech. rept. TR-24-05. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Computer Science.
35. Nanevski, A., Pfenning, F. & Pientka, B. (to appear) Contextual modal type theory. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic.
36. Nederpelt, R. P., Geuvers, J. H. & de Vrijer, R. C. (eds). (1994) Selected papers on AUTOMATH. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 133. Amsterdam, North-Holland: Elsevier.
37. Nipkow, T., Paulson, L. C. & Wenzel, M. (2002) Isabelle/HOL - A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2283. New York: Springer-Verlag.
38. Pfenning, F. (1991) Logic programming in the LF logical framework. In Logical Frameworks, Huet, G. & Plotkin, G. D. (eds). New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-181.
39. Pfenning, F. (1992) A Proof of the Church-Rosser Theorem and Its Representation in a Logical Framework. Tech. rept. CMU-CS-92-186. Pittsburgh, PA: Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
40. Pfenning, F. (1994) A. Structural Proof of Cut Elimination and Its Representation in A Logical Framework. Tech. rept. CMU-CS-94-218. Pittsburgh, PA: Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
41. Pfenning, F. (1999) Logical frameworks. In Handbook of Automated Reasoning, Robinson, A. & Voronkov, A. (eds). Elsevier Science and MIT Press.
42. Pfenning, F. & Rohwedder, E. (1992) Implementing the meta-theory of deductive systems. In International Conference on Automated Deduction. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Kapur, D. (ed). vol. 607. Springer-Verlag, pp. 537-551.
43. Pfenning, F. & Schürmann, C. (1999) System description: Twelf - a meta-logical framework for deductive systems. In International Conference on Automated Deduction, Ganzinger, H. (ed). pp. 202-206.
44. Pfenning, F. & Schürmann, C. (2002) Twelf User's Guide, Version 1.4.
45. Pientka, B. & Pfenning, F. (2000) Termination and reduction checking in the logical framework. In Workshop on Automation of Proofs by Mathematical Induction. Schürmann, C. (ed).
46. Reed, J. (2006) Hybridizing a logical framework. In International Workshop on Hybrid Logic. Electronic Notes in Theoeretical Computer Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 135-148.
47. Rohwedder, E. & Pfenning, F. (1996) Mode and termination checking for higher-order logic programs. In European Symposium on Programming, Nielson, H. R. (ed). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1058. Springer-Verlag, pp. 296-3.10.
48. Salvesen, A. (1990) The Church-Rosser theorem for LF with βη-reduction. Unpublished notes to a talk given at the First Workshop on Logical Frameworks.
49. Schürmann, C. (2000) Automating the Meta-theory of Deductive Systems, Ph.D. thesis. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
50. Schürmann, C. & Pfenning, F. (1998) Automated theorem proving in a simple meta-logic for LF. International Conference on Automated Deduction. Kirchner, C. & Kirchner, H. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1421. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 286-300.
51. Schürmann, C. & Pfenning, F. (2003) A coverage checking algorithm for LF. In International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 120-135.
52. Schürmann, C. & Stehr, M.-O. (2005) An executable formalization of the HOL/NuPRL connection in Twelf. In International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 150-166.
53. ω in LF. Electronic Notes Theoretical Computer Sci. 58(1), 79-96.
54. Schürmann, C., Poswolsky, A. & Sarnat, J. (2005) The ∇-calculus: Functional programming with higher-order encodings. International Conference on Typed Lambda Calculi and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 339-353.
55. Simmons, R. (2005) Twelf as a Unified Framework for Language Formalization and Implementation. Tech. rept. Princetn, NJ: Princeton University. Undergraduate Senior Thesis 18679.
56. van Daalen, D. T. (1980) The Language Theory of AUTOMATH, Ph.D. thesis. Eindhoven, Netherlands: Technical University of Eindhoven.
57. Virga, R. (1999) Higher-Order Rewriting with Dependent Types, Ph.D. thesis. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
58. Watkins, K. Cervesato, I., Pfenning, F. & Walker, D. (2002) A Concurrent Logical Framework I: Judgments and Properties. Tech. rept. CMU-CS-02-101. Pittsburgh PA: Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University. Revised May 2003.
59. Watkins, K. Cervesato, I. Pfenning, F. & Walker, D. (2004a) A concurrent logical framework: The propositional fragment. In Types for Proofs and Programs, Berardi, S., Coppo, M. & Damiani, F. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3085. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 355-377.
60. Watkins, K., Cervesato, I., Pfenning, F. & Walker, D. (2004b) Specifying properties of concurrent computations in CLF. In International Workshop on Logical Frameworks and Meta-Languages, Schürmann, C. (ed).