Abstract
Most computer checked proofs are tied to the particular technology of a prover’s software. While sharing results between proof assistants is a recognized and desirable goal, the current organization of theorem proving tools makes such sharing an exception instead of the rule. In this talk, I argue that we need to turn the current architecture of proof assistants and formal proofs inside-out. That is, instead of having a few mature theorem provers include within them their formally checked theorems and proofs, I propose that proof assistants should sit on the edge of a web of formal proofs and that proof assistant should be exporting their proofs so that they can exist independently of any theorem prover. While it is necessary to maintain the dependencies between definitions, theories, and theorems, no explicit library structure should be imposed on this web of formal proofs. Thus a theorem and its proofs should not necessarily be located at a particular URL or within a particular prover’s library. While the world of symbolic logic and proof theory certainly allows for proofs to be seen as global and permanent objects, there is a lot of research and engineering work that is needed to make this possible. I describe some of the required research and development that must be done to achieve this goal.
References
[1]
Abadi MAccess control in a core calculus of dependencyElectr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci20071725-312328285
[2]
Abadi M van der Meyden R and van der Torre L Variations in access control logic Deontic Logic in Computer Science 2008 Heidelberg Springer 96-109
[3]
Abadi M, Fournet C, and Gonthier GSecure implementation of channel abstractionsInf. Comput.2002174137-831899121
[4]
Alexander A Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern World 2014 London Oneworld Publications
[5]
Andrews, P.B.: Accept diversity, August 1994. http://mizar.org/qed/mail-archive/volume-2/0199.html
[6]
Anonymous: The QED manifesto. In: Bundy, A. (ed.) 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction, LNAI, vol. 814, pp. 238–251. Springer, Nancy, France, June 1994
[7]
Appel, A.W.: Foundational proof-carrying code. In: 16th Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 247–258 (2001)
[8]
Appel, A.W., Felten, E.W.: Proof-carrying authentication. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 52–62. ACM (1999)
[9]
Armknecht, F., et al.: A guide to fully homomorphic encryption. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2015/1192 (2015). https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1192
[10]
Assaf Ali and Burel GuillaumeTranslating HOL to DeduktiElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science201518674-883609921
[11]
Assaf, A., et al.: Expressing theories in the -calculus modulo theory and in the Dedukti system. In: TYPES: Types for Proofs and Programs. Novi Sad, Serbia (2016)
[12]
Bauer, L.: Access control for the web Via. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, 30 September 2003. http://www.ece.cmu.edu/lbauer/papers/thesis.pdf
[13]
Benet, J.: IPFS-content addressed, versioned, P2P file system (2014)
[14]
Berners-Lee, T.: Semantic Web road map. Technical report, W3C Design Issues (1998). http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html
[15]
Bertot Y and Castéran P Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development. Coq’Art: The Calculus of Inductive Constructions 2004 Heidelberg Springer
[16]
Blanco R, Chihani Z, and Miller D de Moura L Translating between implicit and explicit versions of proof Automated Deduction – CADE 26 2017 Cham Springer 255-273
[17]
de Bruijn NG Seldin JP and Hindley R A survey of the project AUTOMATH To H.B.Curry: Essays in Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus, and Formalism 1980 New York Academic Press 589-606
[18]
de Bruijn NG Huet G and Plotkin G A plea for weaker frameworks Logical Frameworks 1991 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 40-67
[19]
Carbone, M., Nielsen, M., Sassone, V.: A formal model for trust in dynamic networks. In: SEFM, p. 54. IEEE Computer Society (2003)
[20]
Carette J and Farmer WM Carette J, Dixon L, Coen CS, and Watt SM A review of mathematical knowledge management Intelligent Computer Mathematics 2009 Heidelberg Springer 233-246
[21]
Chihani Z, Miller D, and Renaud FA semantic framework for proof evidenceJ. Autom. Reasoning2017593287-330369479306842147
[22]
Comon, H., Koutsos, A.: Formal computational unlinkability proofs of RFID protocols. In: 2017 IEEE 30th Conference on Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), pp. 100–114. IEEE (2017)
[23]
Certification problem format (2015). http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/software/cpf/
[24]
Garg, D., Pfenning, F.: A proof-carrying file system. In: 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 349–364. IEEE (2010)
[25]
Harper R, Honsell F, and Plotkin GA framework for defining logicsJ. ACM1993401143-1841202142
[26]
Harrison J, Urban J, and Wiedijk FPreface: twenty years of the QED manifestoJ. Formaliz. Reasoning2016911-2346063807106501
[27]
Heath Q and Miller DA proof theory for model checkingJ. Autom. Reasoning2019634857-885401536107121992
[28]
Heule MJH, Hunt WA, and Wetzler N Felty AP and Middeldorp A Expressing symmetry breaking in DRAT proofs Automated Deduction – CADE-25 2015 Cham Springer 591-606
[29]
Hintikka J Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction into the Logic of the Two Notions 1962 Ithaca Cornell University Press
[30]
Kohlhase M and Rabe FQED reloaded: towards a pluralistic formal library of mathematical knowledgeJ. Formaliz. Reasoning201691201-234346064607106509
[31]
MacKenzie D Mechanizing Proof 2001 Cambridge MIT Press
[32]
Merkle RC Pomerance C A digital signature based on a conventional encryption function Advances in Cryptology — CRYPTO ’87 1988 Heidelberg Springer 369-378
[33]
Miller D Jouannaud J-P and Shao Z A proposal for broad spectrum proof certificates Certified Programs and Proofs 2011 Heidelberg Springer 54-69
[34]
Miller DProof checking and logic programmingFormal Aspects Comput.2017293383-39936465031362.68056
[35]
Necula, G.C.: Proof-carrying code. In: Conference Record of the 24th Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, vol. 97, pp. 106–119. ACM Press, Paris, France (1997)
[36]
Necula, G.C., Rahul, S.P.: Oracle-based checking of untrusted software. In: Hankin, C., Schmidt, D. (eds.) 28th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 142–154 (2001)
[37]
Pfenning F Robinson JA and Voronkov A Logical frameworks Handbook of Automated Reasoning 2001 Cambridge Elsevier and MIT Press 1063-1147
[38]
Pollack R Sambin G and Smith J How to believe a machine-checked proof Twenty Five Years of Constructive Type Theory 1998 Oxford Oxford University Press
[39]
Primiero, G., Raimondi, F.: A typed natural deduction calculus to reason about secure trust. In: Miri, A., Hengartner, U., Huang, N.F., Jøsang, A., García-Alfaro, J. (eds.) Twelfth Annual International Conference on Privacy, pp. 379–382. Security and Trust, Toronto, ON, Canada, 23–24 July (2014)
[40]
Rabe FHow to identify, translate and combine logics?J. Logic Comput.20172761753-17983850219
[41]
Schneider FB, Walsh K, and Sirer EG Nexus authorization logic (NAL): design rationale and applications ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 2011 14 1 8:1-8:28
[42]
Shein E Hacker-proof coding Commun. ACM 2017 60 8 12-14
[43]
Sternagel Christian and Thiemann RenéThe Certification Problem FormatElectronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science201416761-723599350
[44]
Stodden, V., Bailey, D.H., Borwein, J., LeVeque, R.J., Rider, W., Stein, W.: Setting the default to reproducible: reproducibility in computational and experimental mathematics, February 2013. http://www.davidhbailey.com/dhbpapers/icerm-report.pdf
[45]
Voevodsky, V.: Univalent foundations. Talk given at the Institute for Advanced Study, March 2014. http://www.math.ias.edu/vladimir/sites/math.ias.edu.vladimir/files/2014_IAS.pdf
[46]
Wetzler N, Heule MJH, and Hunt WA Sinz C and Egly U DRAT-trim: efficient checking and trimming using expressive clausal proofs Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2014 2014 Cham Springer 422-429
[47]
Wiedijk F The QED manifesto revisited Stud. Logic Gramm. Rhetor. 2007 10 23 121-133
[48]
Wu, D., Appel, A.W., Stump, A.: Foundational proof checkers with small witnesses. In: Miller, D. (ed.) Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declaritive Programming, PPDP 2003, pp. 264–274. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2003)
Index Terms
- A Distributed and Trusted Web of Formal Proofs
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Logic of Negation-Complete Interactive Proofs (Formal Theory of Epistemic Deciders)
We produce a decidable classical normal modal logic of internalised negation-complete and thus disjunctive non-monotonic interactive proofs (LDiiP) from an existing logical counterpart of non-monotonic or instant interactive proofs (LiiP). LDiiP ...
Logic of Intuitionistic Interactive Proofs (Formal Theory of Perfect Knowledge Transfer)
We produce a decidable super-intuitionistic normal modal logic of internalised intuitionistic (and thus disjunctive and monotonic) interactive proofs (LIiP) from an existing classical counterpart of classical monotonic non-disjunctive interactive proofs ...
Formal SOS-Proofs for the Lambda-Calculus
We describe in this paper formalisations for the properties of weakening, type-substitutivity, subject-reduction and termination of the usual big-step evaluation relation. Our language is the lambda-calculus whose simplicity allows us to show actual ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Jan 2020
442 pages
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020.
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 09 January 2020
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in