[opentheory-users] importer for Isabelle

[Ramana Kumar]

Yes, if it works (or is close to working) I would like to get it
incorporated into the Isabelle codebase. I'm not yet sure how to contribute
things to Isabelle, but I imagine I'll find out within the next few months.

On 23 May 2015 at 15:52, Brian Huffman <brianh at cs.pdx.edu> wrote:

> I've hardly looked at it since I wrote it. It was never incorporated
> into the Isabelle codebase. I suppose it would probably work with the
> latest Isabelle, because it uses only the low-level proof kernel api,
> which doesn't change much any more.
>
> I'll have to look around to see where I have a copy of the source
> code; that was a couple of computers ago. Did you want to try to do
> something with it?
>
> - Brian
>
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Ramana Kumar <ramana at member.fsf.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > What's the status of your OpenTheory importer? Does it work with the
> > latest Isabelle? Was it incorporated into the main code base?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ramana
> >
> > On 15 April 2011 at 17:34, Brian Huffman <brianh at cs.pdx.edu> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Joe Hurd <joe at gilith.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Brian,
> >>>
> >>> That is really great work! Am I right in thinking you can import the
> >>> parser-1.5 article binding all the input symbols and axioms to
> >>> existing ones in Isabelle? I would have guessed that Isabelle type
> >>> classes would have managed to get in the way at some point, but
> >>> perhaps this would only be for converting Isabelle proofs to
> >>> OpenTheory format?
> >>
> >> Yes, each of the input constants of the article is mapped to a
> >> pre-existing Isabelle constant. Some of these existing Isabelle
> >> constants happen to be overloaded, but that doesn't cause any
> >> problems. This mapping of constant names does not even need to be
> >> one-to-one; for example, I imagine that "Number.Natural.+" and
> >> "Number.Integer.+" would map to the same overloaded "plus" constant in
> >> Isabelle.
> >>
> >> Of course, exporting proofs from Isabelle is a completely different
> story.
> >>
> >>> You mentioned that you prove a lot of theorems that the OpenTheory
> >>> article relies on, but it seems you could reduce this by processing a
> >>> set of OpenTheory packages that don't make any definitions. When I was
> >>> designing the standard theory library I tried to isolate packages that
> >>> made definitions and have them export just a minimal theorem interface
> >>> - most of the theorems are proved in packages that make no definitions
> >>> and so can be safely run to populate the [opentheory] set of theorems.
> >>
> >> Your idea of keeping definitions in separate, minimal modules is a
> >> good design. I'm sure I could have greatly reduced the number of
> >> [opentheory] lemmas that I needed by finding the right additional
> >> article files to import; I was just too lazy to figure out how the
> >> packages were organized.
> >>
> >>>> The importer should also extend these tables whenever it defines a new
> >>>> constant or type, but I haven't implemented this yet. Another nice
> >>>> feature would be a way for users to influence how the importer chooses
> >>>> names for newly-defined constants and types. Right now it takes the
> >>>> names directly from the strings in the article file, which isn't so
> >>>> nice for names like "HOLLight._dest_rec" (Isabelle's parser can't
> >>>> handle names that start with underscores).
> >>>
> >>> You should find that constants and type operators with names like this
> >>> are never exported from a theory (i.e., never appear in exported
> >>> theorems), so it's perfectly safe to normalize their names to
> >>> something more acceptable to Isabelle. They are `local definitions'
> >>> that are used only in proofs.
> >>
> >> Actually, it seems like it would be safe to rename *any* constant
> >> (whether exported or not) to any name that I want in Isabelle, as long
> >> as the importer keeps track of the name mapping so that later imports
> >> can use the same names.
> >>
> >> I suppose I should write an "import_name" function that converts from
> >> OpenTheory names to Isabelle-friendly ones. It would be nice to
> >> parameterize this by a list of user-specified exceptions to the
> >> mapping, so you could say something like, "import this article, but
> >> when you define constant 'foo', call it 'bar' instead."
> >>
> >>>> Once I clean up the code, I'm not sure what I should do with it... I
> >>>> suppose I could add it to the Isabelle repo, but I'm not sure if I
> >>>> want to advertise to Munich crowd that I've been doing all this work
> >>>> that is unrelated to finishing my thesis :)
> >>>
> >>> I would very much like to see it live on in some fashion - my hope is
> >>> that more and more theories will be converted to OpenTheory packages,
> >>> and your code could be used to import them into Isabelle in a
> >>> principled way.
> >>
> >> I suppose I'll add it to the Isabelle distribution at some point,
> >> maybe after I finish writing my thesis. In the meantime, I guess I can
> >> post the code to the list, so it will be archived and people can try
> >> it out.
> >>
> >> - Brian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> opentheory-users mailing list
> >> opentheory-users at gilith.com
> >> http://www.gilith.com/opentheory/mailing-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gilith.com/opentheory/mailing-list/attachments/20150706/7cc46289/attachment-0001.html>