diff -r bb0b6d818e99 -r 50880fcda34d Paper.thy --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/Paper.thy Sat Dec 29 20:17:57 2012 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +(*<*) +theory Paper +imports UTM +begin + +declare [[show_question_marks = false]] +(*>*) + +section {* Introduction *} + +text {* + +In earlier work, we formalised in Isabelle/HOL the correctness +proofs for two algorithms, one about type-checking in LF and +another about deciding requests in access control [???]. These +formalisation efforts uncovered a gap in the informal correctness +proof of the former and made us realise that important details +were left out in the informal model for the latter. However, +in both cases we were unable to formalise computablility +arguments. The reason is that both algorithms are formulated +as inductive predicates. Say @{text "P"} is one such predicate. +Decidability of @{text P} usually amounts to showing whether +@{term "P \ \P"} holds. But this does not work in Isabelle/HOL, +since it is a theorem prover based on classical logic where +the law of excluded midle ensures that @{term "P \ \P"} is +always provable. + + + + +These algorithms +were given as inductively defined predicates. +inductively defined predicates, but + + +Norrish choose the $\lambda$-calculus as a starting point +for his formalisation, because of its ``simplicity'' [Norrish] + +``Turing machines are an even more daunting prospect'' [Norrish] + + +Our formalisation follows XXX + +\noindent +{\bf Contributions:} + +*} + +section {* Related Work *} + +text {* + The most closely related work is by Norrish. He bases his approach on + lambda-terms. For this he introduced a clever rewriting technology + based on combinators and de-Bruijn indices for + rewriting modulo $\beta$-equivalence (to keep it manageable) +*} + + +(* +Questions: + +Can this be done: Ackerman function is not primitive +recursive (Nora Szasz) + +Tape is represented as two lists (finite - usually infinite tape)? + +*) + + +(*<*) +end +(*>*) \ No newline at end of file