Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adapting functional programs to higher order logic

  • Published:
Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation

Abstract

Higher-order logic proof systems combine functional programming with logic, providing functional programmers with a comfortable setting for the formalization of programs, specifications, and proofs. However, a possibly unfamiliar aspect of working in such an environment is that formally establishing program termination is necessary. In many cases, termination can be automatically proved, but there are useful programs that diverge and others that always terminate but have difficult termination proofs. We discuss techniques that support the expression of such programs as logical functions.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abel, A., Altenkirch, T.: A predicative analysis of structural recursion. J. Funct. Program. 12(1), 1–41 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Augustsson, L.: Cayenne—a language with dependent types. In: International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 239–250 (1998)

  3. Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T.: Executing higher order logic. In: Callaghan, P., Luo, Z., McKinna, J., Pollack, R. (eds.) Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2000). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2277, pp. 24–40. Springer, New York (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Berghofer, S., Nipkow, T.: Random testing in Isabelle/HOL. In: Second IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2004). IEEE Computer Society Press, Silver Spring (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berry, G., Sethi, R.: From regular expressions to deterministic automata. Theor. Comput. Sci. 48(1), 117–126 (1986)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bertot, Y., Castéran, P.: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development: Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science, An EATCS Series. Springer, New York (2004)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Boyer, R.S., Moore, J.S.: A Computational Logic. Academic, New York (1979)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Brzozowski, J.: Derivatives of Regular Expressions. J. ACM 11(4), 481–494 (1964)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Church, A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symb. Log. 5(2), 56–68 (1940)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Cockett, R., Fukushima, T.: About charity. Technical Report TR 92/480/18, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary (1992)

  11. Danvy, O., Filinski, A.: Abstracting control. In: Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on LISP and Functional Programming, Nice, New York, NY, pp. 151–160. ACM, New York (1990)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Danvy, O., Nielsen, L.R.: Defunctionalization at work. Technical Report RS-01-23, BRICS (2001). Extended version of an article appearing in 3rd International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, PPDP’01 Proceedings, pp. 162–174 (2001)

  13. Dybjer, P., Haiyan, Q., Takeyama, M.: Combining testing and proving in dependent type theory. In: Basin, D., Wolff, B. (eds.) Proceedings of TPHOLs 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2758, pp. 188–203. Springer, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Farmer, W., Guttman, J., Thayer, J.: IMPS: an interactive mathematical proof system. In: Stickel, M. (ed.) Tenth International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE). Kaiserslautern, pp. 653–654 (1990)

  15. Filliâtre, J.-C.: Verification of non-functional programs using interpretations in type theory. J. Funct. Program. 13(4), 709–745 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Frisch, A., Cardelli, L.: Greedy regular expression matching. In: ICALP 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3142, pp. 618–629. Springer, New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gibbons, J., Jones, G.: The under-appreciated unfold. In: Proceedings of the third ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, pp. 273–279. ACM Press, Baltimore (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Giesl, J.: Termination analysis for functional programs using term orderings. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Static Analysis, pp. 154–171. Springer, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Giesl, J.: Termination of nested and mutually recursive algorithms. J. Autom. Reason. 19(1), 1–29 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Giménez, E.: Structural recursive definitions in type theory. In: Proceedings of ICALP’98. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1443. Springer, New York (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gordon, M., Melham, T.: Introduction to HOL, a Theorem Proving Environment for Higher Order Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Gordon, M., Milner, R., Wadsworth, C.: Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanised Logic of Computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 78. Springer, New York (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gordon, M., Iyoda, J., Owens, S., Slind, K.: Automatic formal synthesis of hardware from higher order logic. In: Proceedings of Fifth International Workshop on Automated Verification of Critical Systems (AVoCS). ENTCS, vol. 145 (2005)

  24. Greve, D., Wilding, M., Hardin, D.: High-speed, analyzable simulators. In: Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J. (eds.) Computer-Aided Reasoning Case Studies, pp. 113–135. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Greve, D.A., Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J.S., Ray, S., Ruiz-Reina, J.L., Sumners, R., Vroon, D., Wilding, M.: Efficient execution in an automated reasoning environment. J. Funct. Program. 18(1), 15–46 (2008)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Hagino, T.: A categorical programming language. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh (1987). Also published as ECS-LFCS-87-38

  27. Harper, R.: Proof-directed debugging. J. Funct. Program. 9(4), 463–470 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Harrison, J.: Inductive definitions: automation and application. In: Schubert, E.T., Windley, P.J., Alves-Fos, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 1995 International Workshop on Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications, Aspen Grove, Utah, pp. 200–213. Springer, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hosoya, H., Pierce, B.: Regular expression pattern matching for XML. J. Funct. Program. 13(6), 961–1004 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Huet, G., Lang, B.: Proving and applying program transformations expressed with second-order patterns. Acta Inf. 11, 31–55 (1978)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J.S.: Computer-Aided Reasoning: An Approach. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kaufmann, M., Manolios, P., Moore, J.S.: Computer-Aided Reasoning: Case Studies. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kreitz, C.: Building reliable, high-performance networks with the nuprl proof development system. J. Funct. Program. 14(1), 21–68 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Krstić, S., Matthews, J.: Verifying BDD algorithms through monadic interpretation. In: Cortesi, A. (ed.) Verification, Model Checking and Abstract Interpretation: Third International Workshop (VMCAI 2002). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2294. Springer, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lee, C.S., Jones, N.D., Ben-Amram, A.M.: The size-change principle for program termination. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. pp. 81–92 (2001)

  36. Lewis, J.R., Shields, M.B., Meijer, E., Launchbury, J.: Implicit parameters: dynamic scoping with static types. In: Reps, T. (ed.) ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Boston, Massachusetss, USA. ACM Press, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Li, G., Owens, S., Slind, K.: Structure of a proof-producing compiler for a subset of higher order logic. In: ESOP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4421. Springer, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Liu, X., Kreitz, C., Renesse, R., Hickey, J., Hayden, M., Birman, K., Constable, R.: Building reliable, high-performance communication systems from components. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles. ACM Press, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Manolios, P., Vroon, D.: Termination analysis with calling context graphs. In: Ball, T., Jones, R. (eds.) Computer Aided Verification (CAV). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4144, pp. 401–414. Springer, New York (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Marché, C.: A simple library for regular expressions. Regexp library for OCaml, available at http://www.lri.fr/~marche/regexp/ (2002)

  41. Matthews, J.: Recursive definition over coinductive types. In: Bertot, Y., Dowek, G., Hirschowitz, A., Paulin, C., Thery, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, TPHOLs’99, Nice. Springer, New York (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  42. McIlroy, D.: Enumerating the strings of regular languages (Functional Pearl). J. Funct. Program. 14(5), 503–518 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Moore, J., Manolios, P.: Partial functions in ACL2. J. Autom. Reason. 31(2), 107–127 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Müller, O., Nipkow, T., Oheimb, D.v, Slotosch, O.: HOLCF=HOL+LCF. J. Funct. Program. 9, 191–223 (1999)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Nipkow, T.: Verified lexical analysis. In: Grundy, J., Newey, M. (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1479, pp. 1–15. Springer, New York (1998). Invited talk

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL—A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2283. Springer, New York (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Nishihara, T., Minamide, Y.: Depth first search. Entry in the Isabelle Archive of Formal Proofs (2004)

  48. Norrish, M., Slind, K.: HOL-4 manuals. Available at http://hol.sourceforge.net/ (1998–2005)

  49. Owens, S., Flatt, M., Shivers, O., McMullan, B.: Parsing tools in scheme. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Scheme Workshop (2004)

  50. Owre, S., Shankar, N., Rushby, J.M., Stringer-Calvert, D.W.J.: PVS System Guide. SRI Computer Science Laboratory. Available at http://pvs.csl.sri.com/documentation.shtml (2001)

  51. Rudnicki, P., Trybulec, A.: On equivalents of well-foundedness. J. Autom. Reason. 23(3), 197–234 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. Shankar, N.: Steps towards mechanizing program transformations using PVS. In: Moeller, B. (ed.) Mathematics of Program Construction, Third International Conference (MPC’95), Kloster Irsee, Germany, pp. 50–66 (1995)

  53. Shankar, N.: Static analysis for safe destructive updates in a functional language. In: Pettorossi, A. (ed.) Logic Based Program Synthesis and Transformation, 11th International Workshop, LOPSTR 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2372, pp. 1–24. Springer, New York (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Slind, K.: Derivation and use of induction schemes in higher order logic. In: Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, Murrary Hill, New Jersey, USA, pp. 275–291. Springer, New York (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Slind, K.: Reasoning about terminating functional programs. Ph.D. thesis, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München. Available at http://tumb1.biblio.tu-muenchen.de/publ/diss/in/1999/slind.html (1999)

  56. Slind, K.: Wellfounded schematic definitions. In: McAllester, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Automated Deduction CADE-17, vol. 1831. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 45–63. Springer, New York

  57. Slind, K., Hurd, J.: Applications of polytypism in theorem proving. In: Basin, D., Wolff, B. (eds.) Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, 16th International Conference, TPHOLs 2003, Rome, Italy, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2758, pp. 103–119. Springer, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Thompson, K.: Programming techniques: regular expression search algorithm. Commun. ACM 11(6), 419–422 (1968)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Thompson, S.: Regular expressions and automata using Haskell. Technical Report 5-00, Computing Laboratory, University of Kent. Available at http://www.cs.ukc.ac.uk/pubs/2000/958 (2000)

  60. Turner, D.A.: Elementary strong functional programming. In: Functional Programming Languages in Education. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1022, pp. 1–13. Springer, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  61. van der Vlist, E.: Relax NG. O’Reilly (2003)

  62. Xi, H.: Dependent types for program termination verification. J. Higher-Order Symb. Comput. 15, 91–131 (2002)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

    Scott Owens & Konrad Slind

Authors
  1. Scott Owens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Konrad Slind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konrad Slind.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Owens, S., Slind, K. Adapting functional programs to higher order logic. Higher-Order Symb Comput 21, 377–409 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10990-008-9038-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10990-008-9038-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation