skip to main content
10.1145/2364406.2364411acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageslfmtpConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A supposedly fun thing i may have to do again: a HOAS encoding of Howe's method

Published:09 September 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

We formally verify in Abella that similarity in the call-by-name lambda calculus is a pre-congruence, using Howe's method. This turns out to be a very challenging task for HOAS-based systems, as it entails a demanding combination of inductive and coinductive reasoning on open terms, for which no other existing HOAS-based system is equipped for. We also offer a proof using a version of Abella supplemented with predicate quantification; this results in a more structured presentation that is largely independent of the operational semantics as well of the chosen notion of (bi)similarity. While the end result is significantly more succinct and elegant than previous attempts, the exercise highlights some limitations of the two-level approach in general and of Abella in particular.

References

  1. Simon Ambler, Roy Crole, and Alberto Momigliano. Combining higher order abstract syntax with tactical theorem proving and (co)induction. In V. A. Carreño, editor, TPHOLs, volume 2342 of LNCS. Springer Verlag, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Simon Ambler and Roy L. Crole. Mechanized operational semantics via (co)induction. In Yves Bertot, Gilles Dowek, André Hirschowitz, C. Paulin, and Laurent Théry, editors, TPHOLs, volume 1690 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 221--238. Springer, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Brian E. Aydemir et al. Mechanized metatheory for the masses: the poplmark challenge. In Joe Hurd and T. Melham, editors, Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, 18th International Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 50--65. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. James Brotherston and Alex Simpson. Sequent calculi for induction and infinite descent. J. Log. Comput., 21(6):1177--1216, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Alberto Ciaffaglione. A coinductive semantics of the unlimited register machine. In Fang Yu and Chao Wang, editors, INFINITY, volume 73 of EPTCS, pages 49--63, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nils Anders Danielsson. Operational semantics using the partiality monad. Agda Implementors' Meeting XI, Awaji Yumebutai, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Amy Felty and Brigitte Pientka. Reasoning with higher-order abstract syntax and contexts: A comparison. In ITP 2011, volume 6172 of LNCS, pages 227--242. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Amy P. Felty and Alberto Momigliano. Hybrid: A definitional two-level approach to reasoning with higher-order abstract syntax. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 48(1):43--105, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jonathan Ford and Ian A. Mason. Formal foundations of operational semantics. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation, 16(3):161--202, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Andrew Gacek. A Framework for Specifying, Prototyping, and Reasoning about Computational Systems. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, September 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Andrew Gacek, Dale Miller, and Gopalan Nadathur. Reasoning in Abella about structural operational semantics specifications. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 228:85--100, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Andrew Gacek, Dale Miller, and Gopalan Nadathur. Nominal abstraction. Inf. Comput., 209(1):48--73, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Furio Honsell, Marino Miculan, and Ivan Scagnetto. ∏-calculus in (co)inductive type theories. Theoretical Computer Science, 2(253):239--285, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. J. Howe. Equality in lazy computation systems. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 198--203, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Douglas J. Howe. Proving congruence of bisimulation in functional programming languages. Information and Computation, 124(2):103--112, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Chung-Kil Hur, Derek Dreyer, Georg Neis, and Viktor Vafeiadis. The marriage of bisimulations and kripke logical relations. In John Field and Michael Hicks, editors, POPL, pages 59--72. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. B. Lassen. Relational Reasoning about Functions and Nondeterminism. PhD thesis, Dept of Computer Science, Univ of Aarhus, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Xavier Leroy and Hervé Grall. Coinductive big-step operational semantics. Inf. Comput., 207(2):284--304, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Raymond McDowell and Dale Miller. Reasoning with higher-order abstract syntax in a logical framework. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 3(1):80--136, January 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Alberto Momigliano, Simon Ambler, and Roy L. Crole. A Hybrid encoding of Howe's method for establishing congruence of bisimilarity. Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci., 70(2), 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Keiko Nakata and Tarmo Uustalu. Trace-based coinductive operational semantics for while. In Stefan Berghofer, Tobias Nipkow, Christian Urban, and Makarius Wenzel, editors, TPHOLs, volume 5674 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 375--390. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Keiko Nakata and Tarmo Uustalu. Resumptions, weak bisimilarity and big-step semantics for while with interactive I/O: An exercise in mixed induction-coinduction. In Luca Aceto and Pawel Sobocinski, editors, SOS, volume 32 of EPTCS, pages 57--75, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Nominal Methods Group. Nominal Isabelle. isabelle.in.tum.de/nominal, 2008, Accessed Sun Feb 14 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. A. M. Pitts. Operationally Based Theories of Program Equivalence. In P. Dybjer and A. M. Pitts, editors, Semantics and Logics of Computation, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. A. M. Pitts. Howe's method for higher-order languages. In D. Sangiorgi and J. Rutten, editors, Advanced Topics in Bisimulation and Coinduction, volume 52, chapter 5, pages 197--232. Cambridge University Press, November 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Alwen Tiu and Dale Miller. Proof search specifications of bisimulation and modal logics for the π-calculus. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic, 11(2):1--35, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Alwen Tiu and Alberto Momigliano. Cut elimination for a logic with induction and co-induction. CoRR, abs/1009.6171, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Philip Wadler, Walid Taha, and David B. MacQueen. How to add laziness to a strict language withouth even being odd. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Workshop on ML, pages 24--30, Baltimore, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A supposedly fun thing i may have to do again: a HOAS encoding of Howe's method

                  Recommendations

                  Comments

                  Login options

                  Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                  Sign in
                  • Published in

                    cover image ACM Conferences
                    LFMTP '12: Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Logical frameworks and meta-languages, theory and practice
                    September 2012
                    50 pages
                    ISBN:9781450315784
                    DOI:10.1145/2364406

                    Copyright © 2012 ACM

                    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                    Publisher

                    Association for Computing Machinery

                    New York, NY, United States

                    Publication History

                    • Published: 9 September 2012

                    Permissions

                    Request permissions about this article.

                    Request Permissions

                    Check for updates

                    Qualifiers

                    • research-article

                    Acceptance Rates

                    Overall Acceptance Rate11of20submissions,55%

                  PDF Format

                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                  PDF

                  eReader

                  View online with eReader.

                  eReader