On continuation-passing transformations and expected cost analysis

We define a continuation-passing style (CPS) translation for a typed λ-calculus with probabilistic choice, unbounded recursion, and a tick operator — for modeling cost. The target language is a (non-probabilistic) λ-calculus, enriched with a type of extended positive reals and a fixpoint operator. We then show that applying the CPS transform of an expression M to the continuation λ v . 0 yields the expected cost of M . We also introduce a formal system for higher-order logic, called EHOL, prove it sound, and show it can derive tight upper bounds on the expected cost of classic examples, including Coupon Collector and Random Walk. Moreover, we relate our translation to Kaminski et al.’s ert-calculus, showing that the latter can be recovered by applying our CPS translation to (a generalization of) the classic embedding of imperative programs into λ-calculus. Finally, we prove that the CPS transform of an expression can also be used to compute pre-expectations and to reason about almost sure termination.

Superposition with Lambdas

We designed a superposition calculus for a clausal fragment of extensional polymorphic higher-order logic that includes anonymous functions but excludes Booleans. The inference rules work on $$\beta \eta $$ β η -equivalence classes of $$\lambda $$ λ -terms and rely on higher-order unification to achieve refutational completeness. We implemented the calculus in the Zipperposition prover and evaluated it on TPTP and Isabelle benchmarks. The results suggest that superposition is a suitable basis for higher-order reasoning.

Extending a brainiac prover to lambda-free higher-order logic

Decades of work have gone into developing efficient proof calculi, data structures, algorithms, and heuristics for first-order automatic theorem proving. Higher-order provers lag behind in terms of efficiency. Instead of developing a new higher-order prover from the ground up, we propose to start with the state-of-the-art superposition prover E and gradually enrich it with higher-order features. We explain how to extend the prover’s data structures, algorithms, and heuristics to $$\lambda $$ λ -free higher-order logic, a formalism that supports partial application and applied variables. Our extension outperforms the traditional encoding and appears promising as a stepping stone toward full higher-order logic.

The Many and the One

Plural logic has become a well-established subject, especially in philosophical logic. This book explores its broader significance for philosophy, logic, and linguistics. What can plural logic do for us? Are the bold claims made on its behalf correct? After introducing plural logic and its main applications, the book provides a systematic analysis of the relation between this logic and other theoretical frameworks such as set theory, mereology, higher-order logic, and modal logic. The applications of plural logic rely on two assumptions, namely that this logic is ontologically innocent and has great expressive power. These assumptions are shown to be problematic. The result is a more nuanced picture of plural logic’s applications than has been given so far. Questions about the correct logic of plurals play a central role in the last part of the book, where traditional plural logic is rejected in favor of a “critical” alternative. The most striking feature of this alternative is that there is no universal plurality. This leads to a novel approach to the relation between the many and the one. In particular, critical plural logic paves the way for an account of sets capable of solving the set-theoretic paradoxes.

Closed Structure

According to the structured theory of propositions, if two sentences express the same proposition, then they have the same syntactic structure, with corresponding syntactic constituents expressing the same entities. A number of philosophers have recently focused attention on a powerful argument against this theory, based on a result by Bertrand Russell, which shows that the theory of structured propositions is inconsistent in higher order-logic. This paper explores a response to this argument, which involves restricting the scope of the claim that propositions are structured, so that it does not hold for all propositions whatsoever, but only for those which are expressible using closed sentences of a given formal language. We call this restricted principle Closed Structure, and show that it is consistent in classical higher-order logic. As a schematic principle, the strength of Closed Structure is dependent on the chosen language. For its consistency to be philosophically significant, it also needs to be consistent in every extension of the language which the theorist of structured propositions is apt to accept. But, we go on to show, Closed Structure is in fact inconsistent in a very natural extension of the standard language of higher-order logic, which adds resources for plural talk of propositions. We conclude that this particular strategy of restricting the scope of the claim that propositions are structured is not a compelling response to the argument based on Russell’s result, though we note that for some applications, for instance to propositional attitudes, a restricted thesis in the vicinity may hold some promise.

Formal verification of Matrix based MATLAB models using interactive theorem proving

MATLAB is a software based analysis environment that supports a high-level programing language and is widely used to model and analyze systems in various domains of engineering and sciences. Traditionally, the analysis of MATLAB models is done using simulation and debugging/testing frameworks. These methods provide limited coverage due to their inherent incompleteness. Formal verification can overcome these limitations, but developing the formal models of the underlying MATLAB models is a very challenging and time-consuming task, especially in the case of higher-order-logic models. To facilitate this process, we present a library of higher-order-logic functions corresponding to the commonly used matrix functions of MATLAB as well as a translator that allows automatic conversion of MATLAB models to higher-order logic. The formal models can then be formally verified in an interactive theorem prover. For illustrating the usefulness of the proposed library and approach, we present the formal analysis of a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter, which is quite commonly used in digital signal processing applications, within the sound core of the HOL Light theorem prover.

Making Higher-Order Superposition Work

Superposition is among the most successful calculi for first-order logic. Its extension to higher-order logic introduces new challenges such as infinitely branching inference rules, new possibilities such as reasoning about formulas, and the need to curb the explosion of specific higher-order rules. We describe techniques that address these issues and extensively evaluate their implementation in the Zipperposition theorem prover. Largely thanks to their use, Zipperposition won the higher-order division of the CASC-J10 competition.

Isabelle’s Metalogic: Formalization and Proof Checker

Isabelle is a generic theorem prover with a fragment of higher-order logic as a metalogic for defining object logics. Isabelle also provides proof terms. We formalize this metalogic and the language of proof terms in Isabelle/HOL, define an executable (but inefficient) proof term checker and prove its correctness w.r.t. the metalogic. We integrate the proof checker with Isabelle and run it on a range of logics and theories to check the correctness of all the proofs in those theories.