Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

IMPS: An interactive mathematical proof system

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

IMPS is an interactive mathematical proof system intended as a general-purpose tool for formulating and applying mathematics in a familiar fashion. The logic of IMPS is based on a version of simple type theory with partial functions and subtypes. Mathematical specification and inference are performed relative to axiomatic theories, which can be related to one another via inclusion and theory interpretation. IMPS provides relatively large primitive inference steps to facilitate human control of the deductive process and human comprehension of the resulting proofs. An initial theory library containing over a thousand repeatable proofs covers significant portions of logic, algebra, and analysis and provides some support for modeling applications in computer science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andrews, P. B.,An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth through Proof. Academic Press, 1986.

  2. Andrews, P. B., Issar, S., Nesmith, D. and Pfennig, F., ‘The TPS theorem proving system (system abstract)’, in M. E. Stickel (ed.),10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Vol. 449 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 641–642. Springer-Verlag, 1990.

  3. Bledsoe, W. W., ‘Some automatic proofs in analysis’, inAutomated Theorem Proving: After 25 Years, pp. 89–118'. American Mathematical Society, 1984.

  4. Boolos, G. S., ‘On second-order logic’,J. Philosophy 72 509–527 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J. Strother, ‘Integrating decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers: A case study of linear arithmetic’, Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-44, Institute for Computing Science, University of Texas at Austin, January 1985.

  6. Cardelli, L. and Wegner, P., ‘On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism’,Computing Surveys 17 471–522 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Church, A., ‘A formulation of the simple theory of types’,J. Symbolic Logic 5 56–68 (1940).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke, E. and Zhao, X., ‘Analytica — a theorem prover in mathematica’, In D. Kapur (ed.),Automated Deduction — CADE-11, Vol. 607 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 761–765. Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  9. Constable, R. L., Allen, S. F., Bromley, H. M., Cleaveland, W. R., Cremer, J. F., Harper, R. W., Howe, D. J., Knoblock, T. B., Mendler, N. P., Panangaden, P., Sasaki, J. T. and Smith, S. F.,Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System, Prentice-Hall, 1986.

  10. Coquand, T. and Huet, G., ‘The calculus of constructions’,Information and Computation 76 95–120 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Craigen, D., Kromodimoeljo, S., Meisels, I., Pase, B. and Saaltink, M., ‘EVES: an overview’, Technical Report CP-91-5402-43, ORA Corporation, 1991.

  12. Craigen, D., Kromodimoeljo, S., Meisels, I., Pase, B. and Saaltink, M., ‘EVES system description’, in D. Kapur (Ed.),Automated Deduction — CADE-11, Vol. 607 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 771–775, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  13. Dieudonné, J.,Foundations of Modern Analysis, Academic Press, 1960.

  14. Enderton, H. B.,A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Academic Press, 1972.

  15. Farmer, W. M., ‘Abstract data types in many-sorted second-order logic’, Technical Report M87-64, The MITRE Corporation, 1987.

  16. Farmer, W. M., ‘A partial functions version of Church's simple theory of types’,J. Symbolic Logic 55 1269–91 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Farmer, W. M., ‘A simple type theory with partial functions and sub-types’, Technical report, The MITRE Corporation, 1991.

  18. Farmer, W. M., ‘A technique for safely extending axiomatic theories’, Technical report, The MITRE Corporation, 1993.

  19. Farmer, W. M., Guttman, J. D. and Thayer, F. J., ‘Little theories’, in D. Kapur (Ed.),Automated Deduction — CADE-11, Vol. 607 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 567–581, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  20. Farmer, W. M. and Thayer, F. J., ‘Two computer-supported proofs in metric space topology’,Notices Am. Math. Soc. 38 1133–1138 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Feferman, S., ‘Systems of predicative analysis’,J. Symbolic Logic,29 1–30 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gentzen, G., ‘Investigations into logical deduction’ (1935), inThe Collected Works of Gerhard Gentzen, North Holland, 1969.

  23. Goguen, J. A., ‘Principles of parameterized programming’, Technical report, SRI International, 1987.

  24. Goguen, J. A. and Burstall, R. M., ‘Introducing institutions’, inLogic of Programs, Vol. 164 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 221–256. Springer-Verlag, 1984.

  25. Gordon, M., ‘HOL: A proof-generating system for higher-order logic’, inVLSI Specification, Verification and Synthesis, Kluwer, 1987.

  26. Gordon, M., Milner, R. and Wadsworth, C. P.,Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanised Logic of Computation, Vol. 78 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1979.

  27. Grundy, J., ‘Window inference in the HOL system’, inProceedings of the 1991 International Workshop on the HOL Theorem Proving System and its Applications, pp. 177–89. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.

  28. Guttman, J. D., ‘A proposed interface logic for verification environments’, Technical Report M91-19, The MITRE Corporation, 1991.

  29. Henkin, L., ‘Completeness in the theory of types’,J. Symbolic Logic,15 81–91 (1950).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hines, L. M., ‘The central variable strategy of strive’, in D. Kapur (ed.),Automated Deduction — CADE-11, Vol. 607 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 35–49, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  31. Howard, W. A., ‘The formulae-as-types notion of construction’, inTo H. B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda Calculus and Formalism, pp. 479–490, Academic Press, 1980.

  32. Kohlhase, M., ‘Unification in order-sorted type theory’, in A. Voronkov (ed.),Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, Vol. 624 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 421–432, Springer-Verlag, July 1992.

  33. Kranz, D., Kelsey, R., Rees, J., Hudak, P., Philbin, J. and Adams, N., ‘ORBIT: An optimizing compiler for scheme’, inProceedings of the SIGPLAN '86 Symposium on Compiler Construction, Vol. 21, pp. 219–233, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Martin-Löf, P., ‘Constructive mathematics and computer programming’, in L. J. Cohen, J. Los, H. Pfeiffer, and K. P. Podewski (ed.),Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science VI, pp. 153–175, Amsterdam, 1982, North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Monk, J. D.,Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, 1976.

  36. Monk, L. G., ‘Inference rules using local contexts’,J. Automated Reasoning,4 445–462 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Moschovakis, Y. N.,Elementary Induction on Abstract Structures, North-Holland, 1974.

  38. Moschovakis, Y. N., ‘Abstract recursion as a foundation for the theory of algorithms’, inComputation and Proof Theory, Vol. 4, pp. 289–364, Springer-Verlag, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Owre, S., Rushby, J. M. and Shankar, N., ‘PVS: a prototype verification system’, in D. Kapur (ed.),Automated Deduction — CADE-11, Vol. 607 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 748–752, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  40. Pase, B. and Kromodimoeljo, S., ‘m-Never system summary’, in E. Lusk and R. Overbeek (ed.),9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Vol. 310Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 738–739, Springer-Verlag, 1988.

  41. Rees, J. A., Adams, N. I. and Meehan, J. R.,The T Manual, 5th edn, Computer Science Department, Yale University, 1988.

  42. Rushby, J., von Henke, F. and Owre, S., ‘An introduction to formal specification and verification using EHDM’, Technical Report SRI-CSL-91-02, SRI International, 1991.

  43. Russell, B., ‘On denoting’,Mind (New Series),14 479–493 (1905).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Russell, B., ‘Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types’,Am. J. Mathematics,30 222–262 (1908).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shapiro, S., ‘Second-order languages and mathematical practice’,J. Symbolic Logic,50 660–696 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Shoenfield, J. R.,Mathematical Logic, Addison-Wesley, 1967.

  47. Stallman, R. M., GNUEmacs Manual (Version 18), 6th edn, Free Software Foundation, 1987.

  48. Thayer, F. J., ‘Obligated term replacements’, Technical Report MTR-10301, The MITRE Corporation, 1987.

  49. Weyl, H.,Das Kontinuum, Veit, Leipzig, 1918.

  50. Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, B.,Principia Mathematica, Cambridge University Press, 1910. Paper-back version to Section 56, published 1964.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The MITRE Corporation, 202 Burlington Rd, 01730-1420, Beford, MA, USA

    William M. Farmer, Joshua D. Guttman & F. Javier Thayer

Authors
  1. William M. Farmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua D. Guttman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Javier Thayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported by the MITRE-Sponsored Research program.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farmer, W.M., Guttman, J.D. & Thayer, F.J. IMPS: An interactive mathematical proof system. J Autom Reasoning 11, 213–248 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881906

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881906

Key words

Search

Navigation