Once upon a Time, there was the Larch Prover

51 views
Skip to first unread message

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 6:38:43 PMJan 24
to
The source can be downloaded here:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/garland/LP/

It had FiniteMap object type:

FiniteMap (M, D, R): trait
% An M is a map from D's to R's.
introduces
{}: -> M
update: M, D, R -> M
apply: M, D -> R
defined: M, D -> Bool
asserts
M generated by {}, update
M partitioned by apply, defined
forall m: M, d, d1, d2: D, r: R
apply(update(m, d2, r), d1) ==
if d1 = d2 then r else apply(m, d1);
~defined({}, d);
defined(update(m, d2, r), d1) ==
d1 = d2 \/ defined(m, d1)
implies
Array1 (update for assign, apply for __[__],
M for A, D for I, R for E)
converts apply, defined
exempting forall d: D apply({}, d)
http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/Larch/handbook/FiniteMap.html

Basically a type generated from {} and update, whereby
{} being the empty function. Besides an apply function
it has also a defined predicate. The functions itself are

conceived partial. The apply might react like Dan-O-Matiks
function when outside domain, in that apply(m, d) has
neither provable the value a nor the value b, but nevertheless

the underlying simple typed language would make apply ?total?
on the full D. On the other hand defined is more precise, we
even have ~defined({}, d) provable. So I guess one would use

defined and not apply, in case one is interested which subset of
D corresponds to the domain of a give function. If the type is
not inductive from {} and update, it would also allow infinite

functions and their updates.

Ross A. Finlayson

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 8:04:13 PMJan 24
to
What do you make of "UniMath"?

https://github.com/UniMath/UniMath

Type theory (Coquand's), Univalency after category theory (...),
then I wonder how these systems handle all sorts the usual
vagaries about vacuous quantification and so on.

"Important : files in the library starting with hProp.v will not
compile without a type_in_type patch which turns off the
universe consistency checking ." -- https://github.com/UniMath/UniMath/tree/master/UniMath/Foundations

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 8:22:35 PMJan 24
to
I don't know, these provers do not contribute
to foundation. Any foundational axiom set is
again just some axiom set. Most often it doesn't

matter which foundation you add to the system.
The history of Lerch is interesting, since it
put a lot of faith into Knuth Bendix completion,

not as a foundation, but as a proof search
mechanism. So its currently a source of inspiration
for dealing with first order equality, see also:

A Guide to LP, The Larch Prover
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e8cf48115302abe5658c3972a48056f282330e55

Ross A. Finlayson schrieb:
> On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 3:38:43 PM UTC-8, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>> The source can be downloaded here:
>> http://people.csail.mit.edu/garland/LP/
>

Ross A. Finlayson

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 9:02:17 PMJan 24
to
Univalency seems like a fixed point theorem.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4098196

I would probably note that a fixed point theorem for compactness
after an inductive set, seems like why univalency, instead of vice versa.

I.e. there's a geometric besides algebraic approach.

Excuse me it's not necessarily relevant, though where there's discussion
about de Bruijn or Curry correspondence, it's another example that there are
particulars where the idea is to find the rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence#Generalizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homotopy_type_theory#The_univalence_axiom


It seems more like results after quantification _subsume_ types instead
of that outside axiomatizations _presume_ types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtyping#Subsumption

Ross A. Finlayson

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 9:13:18 PMJan 24
to
"It remains open if the fixed point cluster set
can be some proper subset of the unit circle
of positive measure. We conjecture that there
exist univalent functions with this property."
-- Fixed Points of Univalent Functions, Gharibyan, Schmieder

"Abstract: For a closed nowhere dense subset C of dD a bounded
univalent holomorphic function f on D is found such that C equals
the cluster set of its fixed points."
-- Fixed Points of Univalent Functions II", Schmieder

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 9:14:12 PMJan 24
to
And what is a function space in "UniMath". In Lerch
its relatively simple. Its a mixture of equational reasoning:

apply(update(m, d2, r), d1) ==
if d1 = d2 then r else apply(m, d1);

And predicates:

~defined({}, d);
defined(update(m, d2, r), d1) ==
d1 = d2 \/ defined(m, d1)

But Lerch probably views predicates as special case of
equation in the boolean domain, and that is where most of
the UniMath discussion happens.

But besides that it has the same primordial defect as
Dan-O-Matiks naive function spaces. Namely that apply fails
to derive something in case ~defined can be derived.

The modern approaches for function spaces, like
for example found in Isabelle/HOL do not have this
defect. Can you guess how this is solved?

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 9:32:44 PMJan 24
to
Ha Ha, this is a funny rant:

Isabelle functions: Always total, sometimes undefined
https://www.joachim-breitner.de/blog/732-Isabelle_functions__Always_total%2C_sometimes_undefined

Anyway the solution for function spaces in Isabelle/HOL is this here:

The datatype of "maps"; strongly resembles maps in VDM.
https://isabelle.in.tum.de/library/HOL/HOL/Map.html

You can compare with Lerch, to see what chaned over the years
in the understanding of Function Spaces. The update is
called a maplet. In ASCII you can write f[a|->b], in Isabelle HOL

they use f(a↦b). They start with the empty map:

abbreviation
empty :: "'a ⇀ 'b" where
"empty ≡ λx. None"

and the can prove things like:

lemma map_upd_nonempty [simp]: "t(k↦x) ≠ empty"

Ross A. Finlayson

unread,
Jan 24, 2022, 10:56:29 PMJan 24
to
It sounds like ((0 ->0) =/= 0) -> !(0 ->0). I.e. "nothing is nothing is something".

Vacuity is usually trivial, but, sometimes special.

There are a lot of hangnails in usual deft formalism.

It seems like rationals have LUB defined before nested intervals
would otherwise apply.


Having at least three formalisms that establish continuity,
i.e. line continuity, field continuity, signal continuity, and then
sorting out for "function theory" how cardinals and ordinals are
trichotomous but also there's a continuous domain defined before
the integers and another after the rationals, really makes a lot of
difference in foundations - also as it basically includes extraordinary
elements in theory - are among reasonings that help distinguish
the vacuous and trivial - and universal and total.





Physics is usually at least two things, the near and the far. Here for a
notion of the practical is an idea like a hologram plate, that basically is
manufactured according to a ratio, with the size of a coronovirus
virion, so that there would be plain detectors of coronavirus disease virions,
that on exposure would change color, all according to theories of diffraction.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/inexpensive-3d-printed-microscope-can-spot-coronavirus-in-blood

"To the best of our knowledge this is the first report
of a highly comparative time-series analysis
using digital holographic microscopy data."

https://www.bbva.com/en/history-of-holography/

It seems like with a brief amount of work, it could be designed a
"detects covid device", that uses no electricity or other consumables,
doesn't wear out, and is reusable after washing.

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Jan 25, 2022, 6:52:13 AMJan 25
to
Univalency is rather revival of rewriting systems in
a wicked way. But this is only from glossing over it.
Historically, for example when going from Larch to

Isabelle/HOL, we see rather that first order equality
and rewriting was enhanced by higher order terms and
and a less termish view of propositions. Univalency

seems to make things termish again, and then allow
a horde of category theorists takle the problems that
originally were addressed by "hackers" such as Knuth.

LoL

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Jan 25, 2022, 6:58:55 AMJan 25
to
I just wrote a "anti-rewriting" pamphlet:

Non-Normal Manifesto
Before we begin we should assure ourselves about
our motivation to introduce first order equality into our
automated theorem prover. Usually automated theorem
proves might not only have a notion of an equality s = t,
but also a notion of a rewriting rule s -> t, and a notion
of size |r| of a term r.

A normal proof is then defined as a proof where the (subst)
rule is only applied when not |t| > |s|. With such a notion
of a (subst) rule, might then come a notion of computation
by repeating this step. Ultimately we might then ask for
complete and terminating rewrite rules.

In our take of an automated theorem prover, we do avoid
notions that go beyond equality s = t, and henceforth do
not aim at normal proofs. We are rather interested in
finding short proofs, and a short proof might be a
non-normal proof. The below shows a non-normal proof:

1. f1(c1) = c2 ∧ c3 = f2(c2) ∧ f3(c3) = c4 ⇒ f3(f2(f1(c1))) = c4
2. f3(f2(f1(c1))) = c4 (T⇒2 1)
3. ¬(f1(c1) = c2 ∧ c3 = f2(c2) ∧ f3(c3) = c4) (T⇒1 1)
4. ¬(c3 = f2(c2) ∧ f3(c3) = c4) (F∧2 3)
5. ¬f1(c1) = c2 (F∧1 3)
6. ¬f3(c3) = c4 (F∧2 4)
7. ¬c3 = f2(c2) (F∧1 4)
8. ¬f3(f2(c2)) = c4 (F= 6, 7)
9. f3(f2(c2)) = c4 (F= 2, 5)
✓ (ax 9, 8)

If we measure the size of a term by its printing length, we see
that the first application of (F=) to ~c3 = f2(c2) and ~f3(c3) = c4
is non-normal since f2(c2) is larger than c3. On the other hand
the second application of (F=) to ~f1(c1) = c2
to f3(f2(f1(c1)) = c4 is normal.

Have Fun!

See also:

Regular Equality Proofs for Maslovs Method
https://twitter.com/dogelogch/status/1485940674608386051

Regular Equality Proofs for Maslovs Method
https://www.facebook.com/groups/dogelog

Ross A. Finlayson

unread,
Sep 30, 2022, 12:23:29 PMSep 30
to
"Anti-re-writing"?

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Sep 30, 2022, 7:12:47 PMSep 30
to

Recently I have seen dumb rewriting as rather a plus.
There are a few interesting propositional logic
provers, which combine different approaches:

1) Quine Algorithm

2) Sequent Calculus

You can marriage the two. Just take Fittings
paper(*) here, and then change the end-phase
of the prover as follows. From:

/* Fitting */
thm([L1|Lambda], [L2|_]) :- ( L1 = L2, ! ; thm(Lambda, [L2]) ).
thm(Lambda, [~ L | Gamma]) :- thm([L | Lambda], Gamma), !.
thm(Lambda, [L | Gamma]) :- thm([~ L | Lambda], Gamma), !.

And replace it by this end-phase:

/* Fitting + fCube Simplification */
thm(_, [1 | _)] :- !.
thm(_, [0 | Gamma]) :- !, thm2(_, Gamma).
thm2(_, [L| Gamma]) :- opposite2(L, R),
reduce(Gamma, R, Gamma2), thm2(_, Gamma2).

(*)
leanTAP revisited - September 1999
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2240690

Ross A. Finlayson schrieb am Freitag, 30. September 2022 um 18:23:29 UTC+2:
> On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 3:58:55 AM UTC-8, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > I just wrote a "anti-rewriting" pamphlet:
> "Anti-re-writing"?

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Sep 30, 2022, 7:15:11 PMSep 30
to
Whats the Bang! of this marriage. Well the result is something
well known from SAT Solving, namely incorporation of what
might be termed look-ahead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_solver#CDCL_solvers

But it goes also by the name forward checking or unit
propagation, whereby you can propagate all kind of stuff.
Some empirical result on the test case SYN007+1.014.p:

/* Fitting */
% 12,779,502 inferences, 0.813 CPU in 0.826 seconds (98% CPU, 15728618 Lips)

/* Fitting + fCube Simplification */
% 1,203,958 inferences, 0.109 CPU in 0.098 seconds (112% CPU, 11007616 Lips)

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Sep 30, 2022, 7:16:20 PMSep 30
to

Anyway, thanks for checking whether I am asleep.
Unfortunately, busy as hell with some profane nonsense.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages