Group from CMU's solution

- Authors: Michael Ashley-Rollman, Karl Crary, and Robert Harper.
- Parts addressed: 1 and 2.
- Proof assistant / theorem prover used: Twelf.
- Encoding technique: HOAS.
- Files: [tar.gz]

Group from CMU's solution

- Authors: Michael Ashley-Rollman, Karl Crary, and Robert Harper.
- Parts addressed: 1 and 2.
- Proof assistant / theorem prover used: Twelf.
- Encoding technique: HOAS.
- Files: [tar.gz]

Commentary

The Twelf methodology (worlds, world subsumption, termination checking, etc.) can be a bit mysterious for the uninitiated - not only for writing proofs, but even for understanding the significance of what one is reading. Once past the steep part of the learning curve, though, it becomes pretty natural (or so it is claimed :-). The relative simplicity of the Twelf framework (compared, for example, to Isabelle) is pleasant: proofs are written in a fairly direct style, rather than being carried out by applications of mysterious and powerful tactics. The inability to reuse common structures like lists is annoying, but not prohibitively so.

HOAS is mostly a big win, but occasionally poses conundrums that have to be worked around in clever ways (e.g., the problem of how to "isolate" a variable in the middle of the context, needed for the transitivity/narrowing proof).

The choice of an alternative presentation of the evaluation relation, using congruence rules instead of evaluation contexts, provoked an animated discussion on the mailing list. There were some who felt that this constituted a significant departure from the specification; others felt that the congruence rule presentation was "obviously the same" as the one using evaluation rules. One lesson from this discussion is that the "adequacy gap" (i.e., the complexity of the adequacy theorem relating an LF formalization to its paper presentation) can be of variable size and reasonable people can differ on how big it can be before adequacy itself requires a formal proof. However, in practice, Twelf users report that they tend not to bother thinking about this sort of adequacy at all: rather, they formulate their definitions directly in LF.

Summary: An impressive demonstration of Twelf's strengths on a problem for which it is very well suited. For problems that involve heavy use of variable binding and that fit well with what Twelf can do (all theorems have Pi-2 statements and their proofs proceed by purely syntactic induction over inductively defined structures), Twelf is clearly an excellent tool.

In its current incarnation, the Twelf metatheory has some limitations (principally the restriction to Pi-2 propositions) that place certain sorts of reasoning beyond its scope. For example, logical relations arguments cannot be carried out (except via heavy encodings), and the status of coinduction is uncertain. Work on lifting these limitations is underway, but a usable system appears to be some way off.