Results 1 
8 of
8
Isabelle as Documentoriented Proof Assistant
 CONFERENCE ON INTELLIGENT COMPUTER MATHEMATICS / MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (CICM/MKM 2011), LNAI 6824, SPRINGER. AVAILABLE AT HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1007/ 9783642226731_17. M. WENZEL 15
"... Proof assistants in the LCF tradition, such as Coq, Isabelle, and the HOL family, are notorious for oldfashioned commandline interaction with input and output of plain text. Established prover interfaces like Proof General merely add a thin layer on top of the readevalprint loop in the backgroun ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof assistants in the LCF tradition, such as Coq, Isabelle, and the HOL family, are notorious for oldfashioned commandline interaction with input and output of plain text. Established prover interfaces like Proof General merely add a thin layer on top of the readevalprint loop in the background. More sophisticated mathematical editors, Webservices, Wikiservers for mathematical content do exist, but any project that aims at fully formal proofchecking struggles with recurrent problems posed by ancient prover engines. Taking the perspective of Isabelle, we discuss common problems and solutions that have emerged in the past few years, to fit the prover smoothly into a documentoriented environment with rich semantic annotations for formal sources. For example, this enables a conventional editor framework to present formal content provided by the prover, without having to understand logic itself (or reimplement a prover). This can be achieved with minimal changes on the editor and prover side, but the combination is able to support the usual metaphors of squiggly underline, tooltips, popups etc. that are now commonplace in browsers or IDEs. Many of these documentoriented traits of current Isabelle are sufficiently general to be transferred to other provers. If such principles are becoming routinely available in LCFstyle provers, building combined mathematical assistants should become more feasible.
Towards Improving Interactive Mathematical Authoring by Ontologydriven Management of Change
"... The interactive use of mathematical assistance systems requires an intensive training in their input and command language. With the integration into scientific WYSIWYG texteditors the author can directly use the natural language and formula notation she is used to. In the new documentcentric paradi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The interactive use of mathematical assistance systems requires an intensive training in their input and command language. With the integration into scientific WYSIWYG texteditors the author can directly use the natural language and formula notation she is used to. In the new documentcentric paradigm changes to the document are transformed by a mediator into commands for the mathematical assistance system. This paper describes how ontologydriven management of change can improve the process of interactive mathematical authoring.
Authoring verified documents by interactive proof construction and verification in texteditors
 LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE VOLUME 5144
, 2008
"... Aiming at a documentcentric approach to formalizing and verifying mathematics and software we integrated the proof assistance system ΩMEGA with the standard scientific texteditor TEXMACS. The author writes her mathematical document entirely inside the texteditor in a controlled language with for ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Aiming at a documentcentric approach to formalizing and verifying mathematics and software we integrated the proof assistance system ΩMEGA with the standard scientific texteditor TEXMACS. The author writes her mathematical document entirely inside the texteditor in a controlled language with formulas in LATEX style. The notation specified in such a document is used for both parsing and rendering formulas in the document. To make this approach effectively usable as a realtime application we present an efficient hybrid parsing technique that is able to deal with the scalability problem resulting from modifying or extending notation dynamically. Furthermore, we present incremental methods to quickly verify constructed or modified proof steps by ΩMEGA. If the system detects incomplete or underspecified proof steps, it tries to automatically repair them. For collaborative authoring we propose to manage partially or fully verified documents together with its justifications and notational information centrally in a mathematics repository using an extension of OMDOC.
Towards community of practice support for interactive mathematical authoring
 In Müller [Mül07a
"... In order to foster the use of proof assistance systems, we integrated the proof assistance system ΩMEGA with the standard scientific texteditor TEXMACS using the mediator PLATΩ. We aim at a documentcentric approach to formalizing and verifying mathematics and software. Assisted by the proof assis ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In order to foster the use of proof assistance systems, we integrated the proof assistance system ΩMEGA with the standard scientific texteditor TEXMACS using the mediator PLATΩ. We aim at a documentcentric approach to formalizing and verifying mathematics and software. Assisted by the proof assistance system, the author writes her document entirely inside the texteditor in a language she is used to, that is a mixture of natural language and formulas in LATEX style. We developed a basic mechanism that allows the author to define her own notation inside a document in a natural way, and use it to parse the formulas written by the author as well as to render the formulas generated by the proof assistance system. This paper examines how the mediator PLATΩ can be extended to identify, analyze and support communities of practice based on the notation practice of individual authors. 1
Managing proof documents for asynchronous processing
 In User Interfaces for Theorem Provers (UITPs 2008), volume 226 of ENTCS
, 2009
"... Asynchronous proof processing is a recent approach at improving the usability and performance of interactive theorem provers. It builds on a simple metaphor: the user edits a proof document while the prover checks its consistency in the background without explicit requests from the user. This paper ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Asynchronous proof processing is a recent approach at improving the usability and performance of interactive theorem provers. It builds on a simple metaphor: the user edits a proof document while the prover checks its consistency in the background without explicit requests from the user. This paper presents a software architecture for asynchronous proof processing. Its foundation is a novel state model for commands that synchronizes the possibly parallel accesses of the user interface and prover. The state model is complemented by a communication protocol that places minimal requirements on the prover. The model also allows asynchronous processing to be emulated by existing linearprocessing proof engines, such that the migration to the new communication protocol is simplified. A prototype implementation that works with the current development version of Isabelle is presented.
Organization, Transformation, and Propagation of Mathematical Knowledge in Ωmega
"... Mathematical assistance systems and proof assistance systems in general have traditionally been developed as large, monolithic systems which are often hard to maintain and extend. In this article we propose a component network architecture as a means to design and implement such systems. Under thi ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Mathematical assistance systems and proof assistance systems in general have traditionally been developed as large, monolithic systems which are often hard to maintain and extend. In this article we propose a component network architecture as a means to design and implement such systems. Under this view a mathematical assistance system is an integrated knowledgebased system composed as a network of individual, specialized components. These components manipulate and mutually exchange different kinds of mathematical knowledge encoded within different document formats. Consequently, several units of mathematical knowledge coexist throughout the system within these components and this knowledge changes nonmonotonically over time. Our approach has resulted in a lean and maintainable system code and makes the system open for extensions. Moreover, it naturally decomposes the global and complex reasoning and truth maintenance task into local reasoning and truth maintenance tasks inside the system components. The interplay between neighboring components in the network is thereby realized by nonmonotonic updates over agreed interface representations encoding different kinds of mathematical knowledge.
• Idea: Script buffer [3, 1]
"... • UI keeps proof script for batch replay • Linear processing, commands become “locked” • Focus on mechanics of proving – userfriendly? H. Gast Asynchronous Proof Document Management (UITP ’08, 22.8.2008) 2DocumentCentered View • Metaphor “proof document” • User edits humanreadble a proof document ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
• UI keeps proof script for batch replay • Linear processing, commands become “locked” • Focus on mechanics of proving – userfriendly? H. Gast Asynchronous Proof Document Management (UITP ’08, 22.8.2008) 2DocumentCentered View • Metaphor “proof document” • User edits humanreadble a proof document • Prover checks the consistency • Assisted authoring [2] • Isar as humanreadable proof language [8] • Backflow: Assistance by prover for editing • Processing linear • PlatΩ approach [6] • Nearnatural, textbook style input language • Frontend parses structure & computes structural diff • Triggers necessary (re)checking by Ωmega prover H. Gast Asynchronous Proof Document Management (UITP ’08, 22.8.2008) 3Asynchronous Proof Processing [7]
User Interfaces for Theorem Provers: Necessary Nuisance or
"... Abstract: This note considers the design of user interfaces for interactive theorem provers. The basic rules of interface design are reviewed, and their applicability to theorem provers is discussed, leading to considerations about the particular challenges of interface design for theorem provers. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract: This note considers the design of user interfaces for interactive theorem provers. The basic rules of interface design are reviewed, and their applicability to theorem provers is discussed, leading to considerations about the particular challenges of interface design for theorem provers. A short overview and classification of existing interfaces is given, followed by suggestions of possible future work in the area.