Skip to main content

Derivation and use of induction schemes in higher-order logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1275))

Abstract

We discuss how to formally derive induction schemes for recursively defined functions in higher order logic. The functions are able to be defined using ML-style pattern-matching, and the induction schemes are also phrased in terms of these patterns. As part of the TFL system, this facility is portable: it has been incorporated into both the HOL and Isabelle systems.

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Lennart Augustsson. Compiling pattern matching. In J.P. Jouannnaud, editor, Conference on Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture (LNCS 201), pages 368–381, Nancy, France, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Richard Boulton, Alan Bundy, Mike Gordon, and Konrad Slind. A prototype interface between Clam and HOL. Participants Proceedings of TPHOLs97, May 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Robert S. Boyer and J Strother Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alan Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In R. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 111–120. Springer-Verlag, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Juergen Giesl. Termination of nested and mutually recursive algorithms. Journal of Automated Reasoning, page ??, 1996. to appear.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. Busch. Unification based induction. In L.J.M. Claesen and M.J.C. Gordon, editors, International Workshop on Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, pages 97–116, Leuven, Belgium, September 1992. IFIP TC10/WG10.2, North-Holland. IFIP Transactions.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Deepak Kapur and M. Subramaniam. Automating induction over mutually recursive functions. In Proceedings of AMAST'96, Munich, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Luc Maranget. Two techniques for compiling lazy pattern matching. Technical Report 2385, INRIA, October 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tom Melham. Automating recursive type definitions in higher order logic. In Graham Birtwistle and P.A. Subrahmanyam, editors, Current Trends in Hardware Verification and Automated Theorem Proving, pages 341–386. Springer-Verlag, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lawrence Paulson. Verifying the unification algorithm in LCF. Science of Computer Programming, 3:143–170, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Piotr Rudnicki and Andrzej Trybulec. On equivalents of well-foundedness. Technical report, University of Alberta, March 1997. http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/ piotr/Mizar/Wfnd/wfnd.ps.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Konrad Slind. Function definition in higher order logic. In Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, number 1125 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Abo, Finland, August 1996. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Elsa L. Gunter Amy Felty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Slind, K. (1997). Derivation and use of induction schemes in higher-order logic. In: Gunter, E.L., Felty, A. (eds) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. TPHOLs 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1275. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0028400

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0028400

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63379-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69526-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics