On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Thomas Sutton wrote:
The end goal in all of this is that the user (perhaps a logician rather than a computer scientist) will describe the calculus they wish to use in a simple DSL. This DSL will then be translated into Haskell and linked against some infrastructure implementing general tableaux bits and pieces. These logic implementations ought to be composable such that we can define modal logic to be propositional calculus with the addition of [] and <>.
Is there a need for a custom DSL or will it be possible to express theorems in Haskell? Having used HOL a bit, I'm not sure that using a general PL as the user interface to a theorem prover is such a great idea. The goal of
On 13/06/2005, at 8:29 PM, Henning Thielemann wrote: the project (an honours project) is to be able to construct [counter-] models using as wide a range of /labelled tableaux calculi/ as possible, thus the need for a DSL of some description (to specify each calculus). The theorems themselves will be expressed using the operators described for each calculus (using the DSL). It will be, in essence, a meta theorem prover.
QuickCheck can test properties which are just Haskell functions with random input, so it would be comfortable to use these properties for proving, too. There is also the proof editor Alfa. As far as know it is written in Haskell but the theorems are not expressed in Haskell. I've not looked at QuickCheck yet, though I've been meaning to get to it for quite a while; I'll have to bump it up the queue.
Cheers, Thomas Sutton