| author | blanchet | 
| Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:02:14 +0100 | |
| changeset 41269 | abe867c29e55 | 
| parent 30242 | aea5d7fa7ef5 | 
| child 42651 | e3fdb7c96be5 | 
| permissions | -rw-r--r-- | 
| 27035 | 1  | 
theory Introduction  | 
| 27050 | 2  | 
imports Main  | 
| 27035 | 3  | 
begin  | 
4  | 
||
5  | 
chapter {* Introduction *}
 | 
|
6  | 
||
7  | 
section {* Overview *}
 | 
|
8  | 
||
9  | 
text {*
 | 
|
10  | 
  The \emph{Isabelle} system essentially provides a generic
 | 
|
11  | 
infrastructure for building deductive systems (programmed in  | 
|
12  | 
Standard ML), with a special focus on interactive theorem proving in  | 
|
| 29743 | 13  | 
higher-order logics. Many years ago, even end-users would refer to  | 
14  | 
certain ML functions (goal commands, tactics, tacticals etc.) to  | 
|
15  | 
pursue their everyday theorem proving tasks.  | 
|
| 27035 | 16  | 
|
17  | 
  In contrast \emph{Isar} provides an interpreted language environment
 | 
|
18  | 
of its own, which has been specifically tailored for the needs of  | 
|
19  | 
theory and proof development. Compared to raw ML, the Isabelle/Isar  | 
|
20  | 
top-level provides a more robust and comfortable development  | 
|
| 29743 | 21  | 
platform, with proper support for theory development graphs, managed  | 
22  | 
transactions with unlimited undo etc. The Isabelle/Isar version of  | 
|
23  | 
  the \emph{Proof~General} user interface
 | 
|
24  | 
  \cite{proofgeneral,Aspinall:TACAS:2000} provides a decent front-end
 | 
|
25  | 
for interactive theory and proof development in this advanced  | 
|
26  | 
theorem proving environment, even though it is somewhat biased  | 
|
27  | 
towards old-style proof scripts.  | 
|
| 27035 | 28  | 
|
29  | 
\medskip Apart from the technical advances over bare-bones ML  | 
|
30  | 
programming, the main purpose of the Isar language is to provide a  | 
|
31  | 
conceptually different view on machine-checked proofs  | 
|
| 29743 | 32  | 
  \cite{Wenzel:1999:TPHOL,Wenzel-PhD}.  \emph{Isar} stands for
 | 
33  | 
  \emph{Intelligible semi-automated reasoning}.  Drawing from both the
 | 
|
| 27035 | 34  | 
traditions of informal mathematical proof texts and high-level  | 
35  | 
programming languages, Isar offers a versatile environment for  | 
|
36  | 
structured formal proof documents. Thus properly written Isar  | 
|
37  | 
proofs become accessible to a broader audience than unstructured  | 
|
38  | 
tactic scripts (which typically only provide operational information  | 
|
39  | 
for the machine). Writing human-readable proof texts certainly  | 
|
40  | 
requires some additional efforts by the writer to achieve a good  | 
|
41  | 
presentation, both of formal and informal parts of the text. On the  | 
|
42  | 
other hand, human-readable formal texts gain some value in their own  | 
|
43  | 
right, independently of the mechanic proof-checking process.  | 
|
44  | 
||
45  | 
Despite its grand design of structured proof texts, Isar is able to  | 
|
46  | 
assimilate the old tactical style as an ``improper'' sub-language.  | 
|
47  | 
This provides an easy upgrade path for existing tactic scripts, as  | 
|
| 29743 | 48  | 
well as some means for interactive experimentation and debugging of  | 
49  | 
structured proofs. Isabelle/Isar supports a broad range of proof  | 
|
50  | 
styles, both readable and unreadable ones.  | 
|
| 27035 | 51  | 
|
| 
29716
 
b6266c4c68fe
basic setup for chapter "The Isabelle/Isar Framework";
 
wenzelm 
parents: 
28504 
diff
changeset
 | 
52  | 
\medskip The generic Isabelle/Isar framework (see  | 
| 29743 | 53  | 
  \chref{ch:isar-framework}) works reasonably well for any Isabelle
 | 
54  | 
object-logic that conforms to the natural deduction view of the  | 
|
55  | 
Isabelle/Pure framework. Specific language elements introduced by  | 
|
56  | 
  the major object-logics are described in \chref{ch:hol}
 | 
|
| 27058 | 57  | 
  (Isabelle/HOL), \chref{ch:holcf} (Isabelle/HOLCF), and \chref{ch:zf}
 | 
58  | 
(Isabelle/ZF). The main language elements are already provided by  | 
|
59  | 
the Isabelle/Pure framework. Nevertheless, examples given in the  | 
|
60  | 
generic parts will usually refer to Isabelle/HOL as well.  | 
|
| 27040 | 61  | 
|
62  | 
  \medskip Isar commands may be either \emph{proper} document
 | 
|
63  | 
  constructors, or \emph{improper commands}.  Some proof methods and
 | 
|
64  | 
attributes introduced later are classified as improper as well.  | 
|
65  | 
  Improper Isar language elements, which are marked by ``@{text
 | 
|
66  | 
"\<^sup>*"}'' in the subsequent chapters; they are often helpful  | 
|
67  | 
when developing proof documents, but their use is discouraged for  | 
|
68  | 
the final human-readable outcome. Typical examples are diagnostic  | 
|
69  | 
commands that print terms or theorems according to the current  | 
|
70  | 
context; other commands emulate old-style tactical theorem proving.  | 
|
| 27035 | 71  | 
*}  | 
72  | 
||
73  | 
end  |