Re: [isabelle] Experimental tweaks to make HOL intuitionistic-by-default



On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Makarius <makarius at sketis.net> wrote:
>
>
> As far as I can tell, there is nobody on this planet who is familiar with
> all of Isabelle's internals. In fact the situation is better imagined like
> this: http://toplowridersites.com/you-are-here-milky-way-galaxy/

Ha! Interesting.

>
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Josh Tilles wrote:
>
>  P.S. I'm about a hundred pages into *ML for the Working Programmer*, so I
>> apologize if all of my questions are just a result of my not yet having
>> read the chapter about constructing a tactical theorem prover [?]
>>
>
> There is certainly something to learn from it: how proof assistants were
> implemented in the early 1990-ies. See also the famous Handbook article by
> Larry Paulson "Designing a theorem prover": http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/
> techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-192.html

Are you being tongue-in-cheek? I can't tell. Like, I wouldn't have guessed
that implementation techniques from twenty years ago are relevant now...

>
>
> The newer "Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning" by John
> Harrison also has a chapter on "Interactive theorem proving", see also
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/atp --- it describes HOL-Light, so the
> prover architecture is very minimalistic.
>
Thank you for pointing that out! I might take a closer look at that later.

>
>
> That won't help in the project to remove the classical principle from
> Isabelle/HOL, which I would consider futile.

You all would certainly know better than I. That said, shouldn't Isabelle
be *able* to function with the classical axiom (HOL.True_or_False) made
into a locale-assumption? I don't mean that as a criticism of anybody's
work; just that if all that's needed is a bunch of tedious updates to proof
automation tools, I think I'd be up to the task as long as I would still be
welcome to ask questions on the mailing list when I run into difficulties.

>   Why change the logic anyway?

The primary reason is actually a sequence of ideas:

   - I try to prove things in Isabelle (versus proving them on paper) as
   much as possible;
   - I'm reading John L. Bell's *A Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis *and
   would like to do the exercises (in Isabelle);
   - and (apparently) Infinitesimal Analysis is *incompatible* with
   classical logic.
      - For example, a fundamental principle is that "The set of magnitudes
      𝜀 for which 𝜀^2 = 0 —the *nilsquare infinitesimals*— does not
      reduce to {0}." And yet the following lemma is easily provable in
      Isabelle/HOL (having imported only Fields and Set):
      lemma "{0} = {x::'a::field. x * x = 0}" by simp

So, to *my* understanding, there's no way to do the exercises in Isabelle
without introducing inconsistency.

> Better use it (and its many ad-on tools) to model your own language and
> logic inside it.
>
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate? Or perhaps point me toward
some examples or explanations by other people?



This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.