I'm making progress on proving Axiom correct both at the Spad level and the Lisp level. One interesting talk by Phillip Wadler on "Propositions ashttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOiZatlZtGU _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer |
There were implementations of C in Lisp. So C shares that formal logic basis, or that it was discovered? On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Tim Daly <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer |
> There were implementations of C in Lisp. So C shares that formal logic basis, or that it was discovered? According to Wadler, C is an "invented" language, not a "discovered" language. shows the logician's view versus the computer science view of various theories.(begin quote of Wadler) Every interesting logic has a corresponding language feature: Natural Deduction (Gentzen) <==> Typed Lambda Calculus (Church) Type Schemes (Hindley) <==> ML Type System (Milner) System F (Girard) <==> Polymorphic Lambda Calculus (Reynolds) Modal Logic (Lewis) <==> Monads (state, exceptions) (Kleisli, Moggi) Classical-Intuitionistic Embedding (Godel) <==> Continuation Passing (Reynolds) Linear Logic (Girard) <==> Session Types (Honda) Languages which were "discovered" (based on theory): Lisp (McCarthy) Iswim (Landin) Scheme (Steele and Sussman) ML (Milner, Gordon, Wadsworth) Haskell (Hudak, Hughes, Peyton Jones, Wadler) O'Caml (Leroy) Erlang (Armstrong, Virding, Williams) Scala (Odersky) F# (Syme) Clojure (Hickey) Elm (Czaplicki) At about minute 43 we hear: "Not all of these languages are based on lambda calculus ... but there is a core that is "discovered". Now most of you work in languages like Java, C++, or Python and those languages I will claim are not discovered; they are "invented". Looking at them you can tell they are invented. So this is my invitation to you to work in languages that are "discovered". Somebody asked before about "dependent types". It turns out that when you extend into dependent types you now get languages that have "for all" and "there exists" that corresponds to a feature called "dependent types". So this means that you can encode very sophisticated proofs, pretty much everything you can name as a program. And so the standard way to get a computer to check a proof for you and to help you with that proof is to represent that as a program in typed lambda calculus. All of these systems are based on a greater or lesser extent on that idea: Automath (de Bruijn) Type Theory (Martin Lof) Mizar (Trybulec) ML/LCF (Milner, Gordon, Wadsworth) NuPrl (COnstable) HOL (Gordon, Melham) Coq (Huet, Coquand) Isabelle (Paulson) Epigram (McBride, McKinna) Agda (Norell) (end quote) Axiom is using Coq for its proof platform because Axiom needs dependent types (e.g. specifying matrix sizes by parameters). In addition, Coq is capable of generating a program from a proof and the plan is to reshape the Spad solution to more closely mirror the proof-generated code. Also, of course, we need to remove any errors in the Spad code found during proofs. It seems there must be an isomorphism between Coq and Spad. At the moment it seems that Coq's 'nat' matches Axiom's NonNegativeInteger. Coq also has a 'Group' type which needs to be matched with the Axiom type. The idea is to find many isomorphisms of primitive types which will generate lemmas that can be used to prove more complex code. Given that Axiom has an abstract algebra scaffold it seems likely that a reasonable subset can be proven (modulo the fact that there are arguable differences from the abstract algebra type hierarchy). Currently Coq is run during the Axiom build to check any proofs of Spad code that are included. ACL2 is also run during the build to check any proofs of Lisp code that are included. I'm taking a course at Carnegie-Mellon this semester using Lean (a Coq offshoot) in order to try to make some working examples of proving Spad code correct. On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer |
Am 13.01.2017 um 07:35 schrieb Tim Daly:
... > > Axiom is using Coq for its proof platform because Axiom needs > dependent types (e.g. specifying matrix sizes by parameters). > > In addition, Coq is capable of generating a program from a > proof and the plan is to reshape the Spad solution to more > closely mirror the proof-generated code. Also, of course, we need > to remove any errors in the Spad code found during proofs. A SPAD extractor should be feasible but it may take some time to set up the necessary infrastructure to compile a plugin. E.g. see https://github.com/coq/coq/tree/trunk/plugins/extraction There is a recent post @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12183095 about Coq2Rust where I saw some nice ideas: -- https://github.com/pirapira/coq2rust There's more about it if you use the search field (bottom) at https://news.ycombinator.com/news. > > It seems there must be an isomorphism between Coq and Spad. > > At the moment it seems that Coq's 'nat' matches Axiom's > NonNegativeInteger. Coq also has a 'Group' type which needs > to be matched with the Axiom type. The idea is to find many > isomorphisms of primitive types which will generate lemmas > that can be used to prove more complex code. > Still there are a lot of Lisp dependencies, e.g. integer.spad zero? x == ZEROP(x)$Lisp -- one? x == ONEP(x)$Lisp one? x == x = 1 0 == 0$Lisp 1 == 1$Lisp base() == 2$Lisp which will it make necessary to start defining a bunch of axioms/parameters. Coq certainly is the right tool for such a venture, however, I recently cloned 'pvslib' which uses SRI's PVS and I was surprised how close it is (syntactically) to SPAD. i guess it would be my second choice. http://pvs.csl.sri.com https://github.com/nasa/pvslib/blob/master/interval_arith/interval.pvs > _______________________________________________ > Axiom-developer mailing list > [hidden email] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer > _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer |
In reply to this post by Tim Daly
>From: Kurt Pagani <[hidden email]> I had not actually thought of trying to extract Spad directly.> >> >> Axiom is using Coq for its proof platform because Axiom needs >> dependent types (e.g. specifying matrix sizes by parameters). >> >> In addition, Coq is capable of generating a program from a >> proof and the plan is to reshape the Spad solution to more >> closely mirror the proof-generated code. Also, of course, we need >> to remove any errors in the Spad code found during proofs. > >A SPAD extractor should be feasible but it may take some time to set up the >necessary infrastructure to compile a plugin. E.g. see > >https://github.com/coq/coq/tree/trunk/plugins/extraction Indeed it would probably uncover bugs in Axiom's compiler. I think it would be really valuable to try to converge Spad and COQ. It would force more functional programming discipline on Spad code. COQ will probably benefit as Axiom's mathematics gets proven. >There is a recent post @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12183095 >about Coq2Rust where I saw some nice ideas: > >-- https://github.com/pirapira/coq2rust > >There's more about it if you use the search field (bottom) at >https://news.ycombinator.com/news. > >> >> It seems there must be an isomorphism between Coq and Spad. >> >> At the moment it seems that Coq's 'nat' matches Axiom's >> NonNegativeInteger. Coq also has a 'Group' type which needs >> to be matched with the Axiom type. The idea is to find many >> isomorphisms of primitive types which will generate lemmas >> that can be used to prove more complex code. >> > >Still there are a lot of Lisp dependencies, e.g. integer.spad > >zero? x == ZEROP(x)$Lisp >-- one? x == ONEP(x)$Lisp > one? x == x = 1 > 0 == 0$Lisp > 1 == 1$Lisp > base() == 2$Lisp This proof effort uses COQ for the Spad code and ACL2 for the Lisp code. We will probably need a COQ.Lisp interface package that provides proofs of Axiom's $Lisp package calls. This needs to be formalized anyway. There should be a complete list made. At the moment (in book volume 5) there is a chapter that contains the Lisp code that Axiom uses but it does not cover direct lisp package calls like 0$Lisp. I''ll try to collect all instances and document the complete set. >which will it make necessary to start defining a bunch of axioms/parameters. >Coq certainly is the right tool for such a venture, however, I recently cloned '>pvslib' which uses SRI's PVS and I was surprised how close it is >(syntactically) to SPAD. i guess it would be my second choice. > >http://pvs.csl.sri.com >https://github.com/nasa/pvslib/blob/master/interval_arith/interval.pvs Thanks. I'll look into the PVS work. However, I've looked at a fair number of these proof systems and COQ seems to be well supported (an INRIA project), well documented, and compatible with Axiom's needs. ACL2 is also well supported, well documented, and compatible. I've used some prior work years ago on a project at IBM Research. It was known as the Boyer-Moore theorem prover. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer |
In reply to this post by Tim Daly
I was largely poking, tongue in cheek, at the earlier syllogism:
>> The point is that Lisp has a formal logic basis and, as Spad is really >> just a domain specific language implemented in Lisp then Spad shares >> the formal logic basis.-- Gaby On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Tim Daly <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer |
I got the tongue-in-cheek aspect but Axiom's formal logic basis is important. In the 1980s Expert Systems were going to take over the world. We tried to prove our version There was a complete mismatch with the rule-based expert systems technology. Because Axiom is so close to the math and Coq is so close to Axiom it seems there is hope that this effort will make a lot more progress. simplifies what is usually a hair-tearing struggle. Lean (a Microsoft/CMU) system is the basis of a course I'm taking at CMU and it seems even more user-affectionate. of a matrix. Since types can be user-defined we can create Axiom-specific types in Coq that mirror the Category structure.Even sweeter is that the syntax is very close to Spad. For example, Spad gcd(x:NNI,y:NNI):NNI == zero? x => y gcd(y rem x, x) and Coq Fixpoint gcd x y := match x with | O => y | S x' => gcd (y mod (S x')) (S 'x) where S is the Peano Successor function. Coq can prove this directly and automatically infer that the type signature is gcd(x:nat,y:nat):nat Coq proofs are now integrated into the build. The next commit will likely include complete automation of the proof, calling Coq during the build process with GCD as the first case. Once that happens the game seems to be creating the Axiom type tower in Coq. Axiom's NNI becomes Coq's 'nat' type. This enables writing Axiom types directly in Coq proofs. The ideal case would be to modify Axiom's compiler to accept the Coq/ML syntax but that's a large effort. Another, more likely effort, would be to implement Coq's trusted kernel in Axiom. That would permit the compiler and interpreter to prove running code. It is time to formalize computational mathematics and put computer algebra on a firm mathematical basis. The technolgy is here (although the funding is not). On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [hidden email] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |