Cyclic Proofs for First-Order Logic with Inductive Definitions

We consider a cyclic approach to inductive reasoning in the setting of first-order logic with inductive definitions. We present a proof system for this language in which proofs are represented as finite, locally sound derivation trees with a “repeat function” identifying cyclic proof sections. Soundness is guaranteed by a well-foundedness condition formulated globally in terms of traces over the proof tree, following an idea due to Sprenger and Dam. However, in contrast to their work, our proof system does not require an extension of logical syntax by ordinal variables. A fundamental question in our setting is the strength of the cyclic proof system compared to the more familiar use of a non-cyclic proof system using explicit induction rules. We show that the cyclic proof system subsumes the use of explicit induction rules. In addition, we provide machinery for manipulating and analysing the structure of cyclic proofs, based primarily on viewing them as generating regular infinite trees, and also formulate a finitary trace condition sufficient (but not necessary) for soundness, that is computationally and combinatorially simpler than the general trace condition.

[1]  Mads Dam,et al.  On global induction mechanisms in a µ-calculus with explicit approximations , 2003, RAIRO Theor. Informatics Appl..

[2]  Ulrich Schöpp,et al.  Verifying Temporal Properties Using Explicit Approximants: Completeness for Context-free Processes , 2002, FoSSaCS.

[3]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Local Model Checking for Infinite State Spaces , 1992, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[4]  M. E. Szabo,et al.  The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen , 1969 .

[5]  Pierre Wolper,et al.  An Automata-Theoretic Approach to Automatic Program Verification (Preliminary Report) , 1986, LICS.

[6]  Robin Milner,et al.  Theories for the Global Ubiquitous Computer , 2004, FoSSaCS.

[7]  Valentin F. Turchin,et al.  The concept of a supercompiler , 1986, TOPL.

[8]  M. Gordon,et al.  Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment for higher order logic , 1993 .

[9]  Geoff W. Hamilton,et al.  Poitín: Distilling Theorems From Conjectures , 2006, Calculemus.

[10]  Peter Aczel,et al.  An Introduction to Inductive Definitions , 1977 .

[11]  H. Keisler,et al.  Handbook of mathematical logic , 1977 .

[12]  P. Martin-Löf Hauptsatz for the Intuitionistic Theory of Iterated Inductive Definitions , 1971 .

[13]  Guillermo E. Herrera Automating the meta theory of deductive systems , 2000 .

[14]  Robert L. Constable,et al.  Infinite Objects in Type Theory , 1986, LICS.

[15]  Dale Miller,et al.  Cut-elimination for a logic with definitions and induction , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[16]  Gerhard Gentzen,et al.  Investigations into Logical Deduction , 1970 .

[17]  Ian Stark,et al.  Free-Algebra Models for the pi-Calculus , 2005, FoSSaCS.

[18]  Mads Dam,et al.  On the Structure of Inductive Reasoning: Circular and Tree-Shaped Proofs in the µ-Calculus , 2003, FoSSaCS.

[19]  Lawrence Charles Paulson,et al.  Isabelle/HOL: A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic , 2002 .

[20]  Maribel Fernández,et al.  Curry-Style Types for Nominal Terms , 2006, TYPES.

[21]  J. Fenstad Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium , 1971 .

[22]  Dilian Gurov,et al.  µ-Calculus with Explicit Points and Approximations , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[23]  Pierre Castéran,et al.  Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development , 2004, Texts in Theoretical Computer Science An EATCS Series.

[24]  Ulrich Schöpp,et al.  Formal Verification of Processes , 2001 .