> On 12 Mar 2018, at 19:12, Ken Kubota wrote:
>
> Thanks, this is what I expected.
>
> Concerning the Axiom of Choice (answering Mario's email, too), its use should
> be expressed as a conditional of the form AC => THM (or as a hypothesis) and
> not as an axiom in order
Ken,
You should know about the Edinburgh Logical Framework (ELF), best
implemented in the Twelf system. While ELF is a particular framework, there
is tons of work about specification and programming in dependently typed
frameworks. See e.g. many papers by Frank Pfenning, Amy Felty, Bob Harper,
Indeed. There is no need to distinguish axioms and axiom schemata (as Thomas
said, oracles are not the latter). This is because of the INST and INST_TYPE
rules of inference. In a system with schemata, instantiation (or matching) is
the way you check whether or not you have an oracle, and you
Hi,
just too clarify. Axioms and oracles are different things in HOL 4. In
the context of HOL 4, an "oracle" usually refers to external proof tool
which is trusted by HOL. Its results are "imported" using HOL's "oracle
mechanism" (mk_oracle_thm and related). Oracles are __not__ axiom
schemata.
Dear Members of the Research Community,
Finalizing my overview at http://www.owlofminerva.net/files/fom.pdf
I would like to ask for major logics and logical frameworks not considered yet.
The logical frameworks included now (as logical frameworks, not only object
logics like Isabelle/HOL) are
Thanks, this is what I expected.
Concerning the Axiom of Choice (answering Mario's email, too), its use should
be expressed as a conditional of the form AC => THM (or as a hypothesis) and
not as an axiom in order to make the appeal to it explicit.
An example is the theorem in exercise X5308 in
There are 2 reasons for adding new axioms and axiom schemata (oracles):
(1) To save the work for proving something provable or constructible
(e.g.: one could assume the axioms for the real numbers instead of
constructing the reals; although in this case, the library includes a
construction of the
Dear Sana,
it is easily possible to define own axioms and inference rules. However,
it very easily leads to inconsistencies and is usually not advisable
expect if you really know what you are doing. In most cases the
definitional extension principles provided by HOL suffice and are much
safer to
The paper in question is Church (1940), which is available online (possibly
paywalled):
DOI: 10.2307/2266170
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2266170
On page 61 we see axiom 9 (description) and axiom 11 (choice).
Mike Gordon was clearly mistaken when he overlooked that Church's 1940 system
already
FLoC’18 Travel Support
Application Deadline: 18 May 2018
Applicants will be informed of decision by 1 June 2018
FLoC has some funds to provide travel grants of up to $1000 (USD) for
student attendees of FLoC’18. Funds can be requested to cover airfare and
lodging (registration fees and
Hey.
Hope you are fine. I am doing MS from National University of Science and
Technology Islamabad. I need your help as i am working with HOL
environment. Is it possible to define an *Inference Rule* or *Axiom* by
myself? Kindly please guide me in this matter.
Waiting for your kind response.
-
SAS 2018
25th Static Analysis Symposium
Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, August 29th-August 31st, 2018
http://staticanalysis.org/sas2018
--
(apologies for multiple copies)
Call for Papers
5th Workshop on Horn Clauses for Verification and Synthesis (HCVS)
Affiliated with ICLP at FLoC 2018
July 13, 2018 - Oxford, UK
https://www.sci.unich.it/hcvs18/
Invited
13 matches
Mail list logo