Skip to main content

Hierarchical Reflection

  • Conference paper
Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs 2004)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 3223))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The technique of reflection is a way to automate proof construction in type theoretical proof assistants. Reflection is based on the definition of a type of syntactic expressions that gets interpreted in the domain of discourse. By allowing the interpretation function to be partial or even a relation one gets a more general method known as “partial reflection”. In this paper we show how one can take advantage of the partiality of the interpretation to uniformly define a family of tactics for equational reasoning that will work in different algebraic structures. The tactics then follow the hierarchy of those algebraic structures in a natural way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, S.F., Constable, R.L., Howe, D.J., Aitken, W.: The Semantics of Reflected Proof. In: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 1990, pp. 95–197. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1990)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Barthe, G., van Raamsdonk, F.: Constructor subtyping in the Calculus of Inductive Constructions. In: Tiuryn, J. (ed.) FOSSACS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1784, pp. 17–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Constructive Coq Repository at Nijmegen, http://c-corn.cs.kun.nl/

  4. The Coq Development Team. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual, Version 8.0 (April 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cruz-Filipe, L., Geuvers, H., Wiedijk, F.: C-CoRN: the Constructive Coq Repository at Nijmegen (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Delahaye, D.: A Tactic Language for the System Coq. In: Parigot, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1955, pp. 85–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Delahaye, D., Mayero, M.: Field: une procédure de décision pour les nombres réels en Coq. Journées Francophones des Langages Applicatifs (January 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dybjer, P., Setzer, A.: Induction-recursion and initial algebras. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 124, 1–47 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Geuvers, H., Pollack, R., Wiedijk, F., Zwanenburg, J.: The Algebraic Hierarchy of the FTA Project. Journal of Symbolic Computation, Special Issue on the Integration of Automated Reasoning and Computer Algebra Systems, 271–286 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Geuvers, H., Wiedijk, F., Zwanenburg, J.: Equational Reasoning via Partial Reflection. In: Aagaard, M., Harrison, J. (eds.) TPHOLs 2000. LNCS, vol. 1869, pp. 162–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrison, J.: The HOL Light manual (1.1) (2000), http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jrh/hol-light/manual-1.1.ps.gz

  12. Hickey, J., Nogin, A., Constable, R.L., Aydemir, B.E., Barzilay, E., Bryukhov, Y., Eaton, R., Granicz, A., Kopylov, A., Kreitz, C., Krupski, V.N., Lorigo, L., Schmitt, S., Witty, C., Yu, X.: MetaPRL – A Modular Logical Environment. In: Basin, D., Wolff, B. (eds.) TPHOLs 2003. LNCS, vol. 2758, pp. 287–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffman, M., Streicher, T.: The Groupoid Interpretation of Type Theory. In: Sambin, G., Smith, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the meeting of Twenty-five years of constructive type theory, Venice. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thomas Streicher. Semantical Investigations into Intensional Type Theory. LMU München, Habilitationsschrift (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yu, X., Nogin, A., Kopylov, A., Hickey, J.: Formalizing Abstract Algebra in Type Theory with Dependent Records. In: Basin, D., Wolff, B. (eds.) 16th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics (TPHOLs 2003). Emerging Trends Proceedings, pp. 13–27. Universität Freiburg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cruz-Filipe, L., Wiedijk, F. (2004). Hierarchical Reflection. In: Slind, K., Bunker, A., Gopalakrishnan, G. (eds) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. TPHOLs 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3223. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30142-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30142-4_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-23017-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-30142-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics