Curry-Howard for term synthesis in Isabelle












1















Say I have proven some basic proposition of intuitionistic propositional logic in Isabelle/HOL:



theorem ‹(A ⟶ B) ⟶ ((B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C))›
proof -
{
assume ‹A ⟶ B›
{
assume ‹B ⟶ C›
{
assume ‹A›
with ‹A ⟶ B› have ‹B› by (rule mp)
with ‹B ⟶ C› have ‹C› by (rule mp)
}
hence ‹A ⟶ C› by (rule impI)
}
hence ‹(B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C)› by (rule impI)
}
thus ?thesis by (rule impI)
qed


I know from the Curry-Howard correspondence that the proposition corresponds to some type (a -> b) -> ((b -> c) -> (a -> c)), and the proof to some term, all inside some type theory (say, in the simply-typed λ-calculus). From the structure of the proof, I know the corresponding simply-typed λ-term is λf:a→b. λg:b→c. λx:a. f(g(x)).



Is there a way to get Isabelle to construct this for me?



I have looked up program extraction in Isabelle, and from what I can tell it largely refers to something else: where you write functional programs in Isabelle, prove things about them and then it provides some kind of translation to Haskell or ML.



I also know that HOL is not the same thing as dependent type theory, which I'm given to understand has a stronger Curry-Howard flavour to it. I know that HOL itself is conceptually somewhat like polymorphic λ-calculus, and I found some brief notes about how HOL is a shallow encoding of logic in type theory, but some more context would be greatly appreciated. I've barely been able to piece together how all these different proof assistants and their associated foundations relate together, and perhaps some more historical context would help too. Unfortunately, the documentation around Isabelle, Coq, etc. all seems a bit all over the place; for Isabelle in particular, I seem to regularly find information that is 20 years out of date.










share|improve this question



























    1















    Say I have proven some basic proposition of intuitionistic propositional logic in Isabelle/HOL:



    theorem ‹(A ⟶ B) ⟶ ((B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C))›
    proof -
    {
    assume ‹A ⟶ B›
    {
    assume ‹B ⟶ C›
    {
    assume ‹A›
    with ‹A ⟶ B› have ‹B› by (rule mp)
    with ‹B ⟶ C› have ‹C› by (rule mp)
    }
    hence ‹A ⟶ C› by (rule impI)
    }
    hence ‹(B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C)› by (rule impI)
    }
    thus ?thesis by (rule impI)
    qed


    I know from the Curry-Howard correspondence that the proposition corresponds to some type (a -> b) -> ((b -> c) -> (a -> c)), and the proof to some term, all inside some type theory (say, in the simply-typed λ-calculus). From the structure of the proof, I know the corresponding simply-typed λ-term is λf:a→b. λg:b→c. λx:a. f(g(x)).



    Is there a way to get Isabelle to construct this for me?



    I have looked up program extraction in Isabelle, and from what I can tell it largely refers to something else: where you write functional programs in Isabelle, prove things about them and then it provides some kind of translation to Haskell or ML.



    I also know that HOL is not the same thing as dependent type theory, which I'm given to understand has a stronger Curry-Howard flavour to it. I know that HOL itself is conceptually somewhat like polymorphic λ-calculus, and I found some brief notes about how HOL is a shallow encoding of logic in type theory, but some more context would be greatly appreciated. I've barely been able to piece together how all these different proof assistants and their associated foundations relate together, and perhaps some more historical context would help too. Unfortunately, the documentation around Isabelle, Coq, etc. all seems a bit all over the place; for Isabelle in particular, I seem to regularly find information that is 20 years out of date.










    share|improve this question

























      1












      1








      1


      1






      Say I have proven some basic proposition of intuitionistic propositional logic in Isabelle/HOL:



      theorem ‹(A ⟶ B) ⟶ ((B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C))›
      proof -
      {
      assume ‹A ⟶ B›
      {
      assume ‹B ⟶ C›
      {
      assume ‹A›
      with ‹A ⟶ B› have ‹B› by (rule mp)
      with ‹B ⟶ C› have ‹C› by (rule mp)
      }
      hence ‹A ⟶ C› by (rule impI)
      }
      hence ‹(B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C)› by (rule impI)
      }
      thus ?thesis by (rule impI)
      qed


      I know from the Curry-Howard correspondence that the proposition corresponds to some type (a -> b) -> ((b -> c) -> (a -> c)), and the proof to some term, all inside some type theory (say, in the simply-typed λ-calculus). From the structure of the proof, I know the corresponding simply-typed λ-term is λf:a→b. λg:b→c. λx:a. f(g(x)).



      Is there a way to get Isabelle to construct this for me?



      I have looked up program extraction in Isabelle, and from what I can tell it largely refers to something else: where you write functional programs in Isabelle, prove things about them and then it provides some kind of translation to Haskell or ML.



      I also know that HOL is not the same thing as dependent type theory, which I'm given to understand has a stronger Curry-Howard flavour to it. I know that HOL itself is conceptually somewhat like polymorphic λ-calculus, and I found some brief notes about how HOL is a shallow encoding of logic in type theory, but some more context would be greatly appreciated. I've barely been able to piece together how all these different proof assistants and their associated foundations relate together, and perhaps some more historical context would help too. Unfortunately, the documentation around Isabelle, Coq, etc. all seems a bit all over the place; for Isabelle in particular, I seem to regularly find information that is 20 years out of date.










      share|improve this question














      Say I have proven some basic proposition of intuitionistic propositional logic in Isabelle/HOL:



      theorem ‹(A ⟶ B) ⟶ ((B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C))›
      proof -
      {
      assume ‹A ⟶ B›
      {
      assume ‹B ⟶ C›
      {
      assume ‹A›
      with ‹A ⟶ B› have ‹B› by (rule mp)
      with ‹B ⟶ C› have ‹C› by (rule mp)
      }
      hence ‹A ⟶ C› by (rule impI)
      }
      hence ‹(B ⟶ C) ⟶ (A ⟶ C)› by (rule impI)
      }
      thus ?thesis by (rule impI)
      qed


      I know from the Curry-Howard correspondence that the proposition corresponds to some type (a -> b) -> ((b -> c) -> (a -> c)), and the proof to some term, all inside some type theory (say, in the simply-typed λ-calculus). From the structure of the proof, I know the corresponding simply-typed λ-term is λf:a→b. λg:b→c. λx:a. f(g(x)).



      Is there a way to get Isabelle to construct this for me?



      I have looked up program extraction in Isabelle, and from what I can tell it largely refers to something else: where you write functional programs in Isabelle, prove things about them and then it provides some kind of translation to Haskell or ML.



      I also know that HOL is not the same thing as dependent type theory, which I'm given to understand has a stronger Curry-Howard flavour to it. I know that HOL itself is conceptually somewhat like polymorphic λ-calculus, and I found some brief notes about how HOL is a shallow encoding of logic in type theory, but some more context would be greatly appreciated. I've barely been able to piece together how all these different proof assistants and their associated foundations relate together, and perhaps some more historical context would help too. Unfortunately, the documentation around Isabelle, Coq, etc. all seems a bit all over the place; for Isabelle in particular, I seem to regularly find information that is 20 years out of date.







      isabelle proof dependent-type lambda-calculus curry-howard






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 15 '18 at 13:28









      Nick HuNick Hu

      233




      233
























          0






          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53320579%2fcurry-howard-for-term-synthesis-in-isabelle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          0






          active

          oldest

          votes








          0






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes
















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53320579%2fcurry-howard-for-term-synthesis-in-isabelle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bressuire

          Vorschmack

          Quarantine