Thanks, Konrad!  Are you and Michael interested in adding more introductory 
material to your HOL4 Logic manual, e.g. along the lines of the excellent intro 
material Michael just posted?  If so, I might have useful feedback.  Or do you 
want to keep your manual in its present form?  When I hit your link 
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/ftp/hvg/papers/HOLPaper.ps.gz 
I only get p 26, the end of the bib.  I tried reading the hol88 docs that John 
recommended, and I'm not sure I found the right stuff (just outline.dvi & 
paper.dvi), but it seemed short.  Would you compare the Logic manual to the 
hol88 docs?

Here's a dumb HOL question.  I keep failing to find where someone says, "In HOL 
we can do most of the set theory  mathematicians generally do".   And maybe I'm 
all wrong!  Maybe HOL is a different way to formalize math not primarily based 
on set theory!  Thierry Coquand's article Cris found for me 
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/type-theory/

   How can we explain the notion of sets in term of types? There is an
   elegant solution, due to A. Miquel, which complements previous
   works by P. Aczel (1978) and which has also the advantage of
   explaining non necessarily well-founded sets a la Finsler. One
   simply interprets a set as a pointed graph (where the arrow in the
   graph represents the membership relation). [...]

I couldn't follow it, but I know your Logic manual doesn't mention either 
Miquel or Aczel, and I'm guessing that what Thierry is talking about here isn't 
central to HOL.

   Or are you just saying that you wish MESON proved more things more
   quickly? (In which case, why not use the prover9 interface, which I
   think HOL-Light provides. Maybe you'll get lucky!)

That's a good idea, prover9, which I haven't figured out, but I think prover9 
is more like Vampire than miz3.  It would be great to use prover9 to further 
Josef's experiment, see how many of my geometry proof prover9 can prove in one 
line.  

It's miz3 than I want to be faster, and MESON does most of the work, I think, 
of miz3.  If you would download my code 
http://www.math.northwestern.edu/~richter/RichterHOL-LightMiz3HilbertAxiomGeometry.tar.gz
run it, look at the proofs, I think you'll be surprised at how long the proofs 
take to run compared to how obvious the inferences I'm making are.  I have 67 
6-digit MESON "solved at" numbers.  You might enjoy reading my proofs anyway!  
John & Michael seemed to say that I'm having equational reasoning problems, not 
to be fixed by improving MESON.  

A different question: why can't one code up declarative proofs like mine in 
HOL4?  I think John thinks it isn't hard to do a bare-bones job, and perhaps 
even did that in his purple book.  Miz3 is an accomplishment primarily, I 
think, because of the caching that Freek wrote (so the 2nd time the proof goes 
MUCH faster) and because you can mix declarative & procedural proof styles.  
Plus miz3 held up very well under my torture-testing.

-- 
Best,
Bill 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
hol-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hol-info

Reply via email to