To browse Academia. The idea is to have enough meta- proof information ie user intent, lemmas used, points of failure and ways of recovery, various proof attempts [sub-] trees, etc.
For that we have worked on a number of case studies, large eg EMV smart Leo Freitas. Lawrence Paulson. Interactive theorem provers require too much effort from their users.
An ATP is invoked at suitable points in the interactive session, and any proof found is given to the user in a window displaying an Isar proof script. There are numerous differences between Isabelle polymorphic higher-order logic with type classes, natural deduction rule format and classical ATPs first-order, untyped, and clause form. Many of these differences have been bridged, and a working prototype that uses background processes already provides much of the desired functionality.
Cliff Jones. Most formal methods give rise to proof obligations which are putative lemmas that need proof. Discharging these POs can become a bottleneck in the use of formal methods in practical applications. Some techniques for reducing this bottleneck are known—it is our aim to increase the repertoire of techniques by tackling learning from proof attempts. Even after obvious fixed heuristics are used, there remains the problem of what to do with POs that are not discharged automatically.
This justification is in the form of proof obligations POs , putative lemmas that need proof. Discharging these POs can become a bottleneck in the use of formal methods in practical applications, and there are two approaches to dealing with them:. Lawrence Paulson , Susanto Kong. Interactive proof assistants should verify the proofs they receive from automatic theorem provers.
