This thesis is a proof-theoretic investigation of logic programming based on hereditary Harrop logic (as in lambdaProlog). After studying various proof systems for the first-order hereditary Harrop logic, we define the proof-theoretic semantics of a logic LFPL, intended as the basis of logic programming with functions, which extends higher-order hereditary Harrop logic by providing definition mechanisms for functions in such a way that the logical specification of the function rather than the function may be used in proof search. In Chap. 3, we define, for the first-order hereditary Harrop fragment of LJ, the class of uniform linear focused (ULF) proofs (suitable for goal-directed search with backchaining and unification) and show that the ULF-proofs are in 1-1 correspondence with the expanded normal deductions, in Prawitz's sense. We give a system of proof-term annotations for LJ-proofs (where proof-terms uniquely represent proofs). We define a rewriting system on proof-terms (where rules represent a subset of Kleene's permutations in LJ) and show that: its irreducible proof- terms are those representing ULF-proofs; it is weakly normalising. We also show that the composition of Prawitz's mappings between LJ and NJ, restricted to ULF-proofs, is the identity. We take the view of logic programming where: a program P is a set of formulae; a goal G is a formula; and the different means of achieving G w.r.t. P correspond to the expanded normal deductions of G from the assumptions in P (rather than the traditional view, whereby the different means of goal-achievement correspond to the different answer substitutions). LFPL is defined in Chap. 4, by means of a sequent calculus. As in LeFun, it extends logic programming with functions and provides mechanisms for defining names for functions, maintaining proof search as the computation mechanism (contrary to languages such as ALF, Babel, Curry and Escher, based on equational logic, where the computation mechanism is some form of rewriting). LFPL also allows definitions for declaring logical properties of functions, called definitions of dependent type. Such definitions are of the form: (f,x) =def(A, w) : EX:RF, where f is a name for A and x is a name for w, a proof-term witnessing that the formula [A/x]F holds (i.e. A meets the specification Ex:rF). When searching for proofs, it may suffice to use the formula [A/x]F rather than A itself. We present an interpretation of LFPL into NNlambdanorm, a natural deduction system for hereditary Harrop logic with lambda-terms. The means of goal-achievement in LFPL are interpreted in NNlambdanorm essentially by cut-elimination, followed by an interpretation of cut-free sequent calculus proofs as normal deductions. We show that the use of definitions of dependent type may speed up proof search because the equivalent proofs using no such definitions may be much longer and because normalisation may be done lazily, since not all parts of the proof need to be exhibited. We sketch two methods for implementing LFPL, based on goal-directed proof search, differing in the mechanism for selecting definitions of dependent type on which to backchain. We discuss techniques for handling the redundancy arising from the equivalence of each proof using such a definition to one using no such definitions.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:bl.uk/oai:ethos.bl.uk:741905 |
| Date | January 1997 |
| Creators | Pinto, Luis Filipe Ribeiro |
| Contributors | Dyckhoff, Roy |
| Publisher | University of St Andrews |
| Source Sets | Ethos UK |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Source | http://hdl.handle.net/10023/13430 |
Page generated in 0.0167 seconds