In Extending Sledgehammer with SMT solvers there is this claim:
Lambda-abstractions are rewritten to Turner combinators or transformed into explicit functions using lambda-abstractions.
The linked reference, Translating higher-order clauses to first-order clauses does not clarify how are this method synchronized. Do we use both of them always? Is one preferred to the other?
According to mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1097834/1097834.pdf the choice of method is tailored for each prover.
According to my scan of the Isabelle files, the Sledgehammer tool is only available for Isabelle/HOL. I'm curious about the automation of other theories in Isabelle. For instance:
Isabelle/ZF
Isabelle/FOL
Do they support:
automatic provers
SMT solvers
specialized decision procedures
Isabelle/ZF does not support SMT solvers or specialized decision procedures. As for "automatic provers" I am not sure if that counts but the method auto is quite capable. In some cases it allows to prove a theorem just referencing the premises and a list of several theorems, see for example theorem bij_base_open_homeo in IsarMathLib.
I need to do a presentation on a paper which at some point makes use of Isabelle/Isar and Isabelle/HOL.
I tried researching online about Isabelle/HOL and Isabelle/Isar to be able to eplain the relations in one or two slides.
Here are the relations as I currently understand them:
Isabelle - provides a generic infrastructure for deductive systems
Based on Standard ML programming language
provides an IDE which allows you to write theories which can be later be proved.
Isabelle/Pure - minimal version of higher-order logic according to this link:
Is it an actual language that can be inputted into isabelle IDE?
Or is it a technical specification?
Isabelle/HOL(Higher Order Logic):
Is it a library or a language?
How does it relate to Isabelle/Pure?
Is it procedural in nature?
Do tactics only exist in Isabelle/HOL?
Is it LCF - Logical Commutable Functions?
Isabelle/Isar:
Structured proof language based on Isabelle/Pure
Declarative
Is it an extension of Isabelle/HOL as stated at here?
Do locales only exist in Isabelle/Isar?
What does the Isabelle/IDE supports by default?
Just feels like I'm getting conflicting information from different sources and would like to sort this out.
Thanks in advance
Edit - Check out this highly related question and Manuel Eberls answer here: What are all the isabelle/slashes?
As this is an answer to a homework question and I myself only have limited understanding of all parts of the Isabelle project, this answer merely tries to point you in the right direction for at some parts of your question.
From the Isabelle/ISAR reference manual:
The Isabelle system essentially provides a generic infrastructure for building deductive systems (programmed in Standard ML), with a special focus on interactive theorem proving in higher-order logics.
It continues to also introduce ISAR:
In contrast Isar provides an interpreted language environment of its own,
which has been specifically tailored for the needs of theory and proof development.
[...]
The main concern of Isar is the design of a human-readable structured proof
language
Let's try to connect Pure to all of this by looking at publications from Makarius Wenzel regarding the topic:
Thus Isar proof texts may be understood as structured compositions of formal entities of the Pure framework, namely propositions, facts, and goals
In colloquial terms, Pure is the semantic foundation. Isar is a language that "follows" this semantic and provides syntax for it. Isabelle is just (one of the) platforms it all runs on.
Some of your confusions around the distinction between Pure and Isar seem to stem from the fact that the Isabelle Pure source code defines, or at least seems to define, both the semantics (Pure) and the syntax (Isar) in one go:
(* The Pure theory, with definitions of Isar commands and some lemmas. *)
In my humble opinion, this might be related to your understanding of syntax, semantics and "implementations" of the two. "Pure" outside of computers or paper is just semantics and thus, like math, just a thing in our brains. Give it syntax and you can put it to paper or type it into a machine. For the machine to be able to process your text (since this is ultimately what we after), it needs an implementation. Some framework telling it how to read the syntax and how to then process it. This framework is Isabelle. On top of Isabelle, there is Isabelle/Pure, which defines the semantics (the processing) and Isabelle/Isar, which defines syntax. For practical reasons, Isabelle's Pure implementation already provides the Isar syntax in one go.
From all of this, you might be able to figure HOL out yourself!
Some more references:
The Isabelle/Isar Implementation
I have some definitions and theorems in Isabelle/HOL and need to use those same definitions and theorems with HOL. Translating the code manually is certainly possible, but cumbersome. Are there any programs that (semi-)automatically perform such a translation?
If this is not possible for some reason, please explain why, since this would be an important learning for me.
In theory, you should be able to easily move theorems and definitions between HOL implementations, and this idea is the motivation of the OpenTheory project. Unfortunately, in practice, Isabelle's implementation of HOL is sufficiently different from the others, and per the OpenTheory page Isabelle only has the ability to import theorems using OpenTheory, and cannot export them, at present.
There are many methods for representing structure of a program (like UML class diagrams etc.). I am interested if there is a convention which describes programs in a strict, mathematical way. I am especially interested in the use of mathematical notation for this purpose.
An example: Classes are represented as sets (fields, properties) and functions (operating on the elements of sets). A parent class' fields are a subset of child class'. Functions are described in pseudocode which has to look like this and that...
I know that Z Notation has been used to some extent in the formal verification of software, such as the Tokeneer project.
Z Notation
Z Reference Manual
http://www.amazon.com/Concrete-Mathematics-Foundation-Computer-Science/dp/0201558025
Yes, there is, Floyd-Hoare Logic.
There are a lot of way, but i think most of them are inconvenient for expressing the structure since the structure is often not expressable in default mathematical concepts. The main exception is of course functional programing languages. Think about folds (catamorphisme), groups, algebra's etc.
For imperative programming I know of the existence of Z, which uses (pure and extended) lambda calculus set theory and (first order) predicate logic. However, i dont think it's very convenient. The only upside of using mathematics to express structure is the fact that you can prove stuff about it. But if you want to do that, take a look at JML, Spec# or Eiffel.
Depends on what you're trying to accomplish, but going down this road with specific languages can get you into trouble.
For example, see the circle-ellipse discussion on C++ FAQ Lite.
This book applies the deductive method
to programming by affiliating programs
with the abstract mathematical
theories that enable them work. [...]
I believe that Elements of Programming by Alexander Stepanov and Paul McJones, is pretty close to what you are looking for.
Concepts
A concept is a description of
requirements on one or more types
stated in terms of the existence and
properties of procedures, type
attributes, and type functions defined
on the types.
Z, which has already been mentioned, is pretty much what you describe. There are some variants of it for object-oriented modelling, but I think you can get quite far with "standard Z's" schemas if you wish to model classes.
There's also Alloy, which is newer and inspired by Z. Its notation is perhaps a bit closer to object-orientation. It is also analysable, i.e. you can check the models you create whether they fulfill certain conditions, but it cannot prove that properties hold, just attempt to refute within a finite scope.
The article Dependable Software by Design is a nice introduction to Alloy and its ilk, along with a table of available similar tools.
You are looking for functional programming. There are several functional programming languages, and they are all based on a fundamental mathematical theory called the Lambda calculus. Programs written in a functional programming language such as LISP are a mathematical representation of themselves. ;-)
There is a mathematical language which actually describes a program or rather it's operations. You take the initial state and then transform this state until you reach the desired target state. The transformations yield the program code which must be executed.
See the Wikipedia article about Hoare logic.
The basic idea is that for every function (no matter if you put that into a class or into an old style function), you have a pre- and a post-condition. For example, the precondition can be that you have an array which has >= 0 elements. the post-condition is that every element[i] must by <= element[j] for every i <= j.
The usual description would be "the function sorts the array". But the mathematical terms allow you to transform the input (which must match the precondition) into the output (which must match the postcondition).
It's a bit unwieldy to use, especially for more complex programs but some of the examples are pretty impressive. Often, you get really compact code as the result which looks quite complex but works at first try.
I'd like to suggest Algebra of Programming. It's a calculational approach to programs, using Relational Algebra, and Galois Connections.
If you have further interest on this topic, you can find an amazing paper, here, by Shin-Cheng Mu, and José Nuno Oliveira (slides).
Using Relational Algebra and First-Order Logic, also has a nice synergy with Alloy, Functional Programming, and Design by Contract (easily applied to Object-Oriented Programming).