hout alternatives and similar packages
Based on the "Logic" category.
Alternatively, view hout alternatives based on common mentions on social networks and blogs.
9.8 8.3 hout VS tamarin-proverMain source code repository of the Tamarin prover for security protocol verification.
7.0 0.0 hout VS atp-haskellHaskell version of the code from "Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning"
6.0 0.0 hout VS logic-classesFramework for propositional and first order logic, theorem proving
* Code Quality Rankings and insights are calculated and provided by Lumnify.
They vary from L1 to L5 with "L5" being the highest.
Do you think we are missing an alternative of hout or a related project?
hout is an in-Haskell non-interactive proof assistant for intuitionistic first-order logic.
Alternatively, hout provides a monad that allows you to write functions in the style of proof-assistant proofs, which are then computable Haskell terms.
This is possible thanks to the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Have a look at
examples/Hout/Examples.hs for some examples.
If you know about the CHI and intuitionistic logic, skip this section.
The Curry-Howard isomorphism
The Curry-Howard isomorphism (or correspondence) is a pattern between intuitionistic logic and type theory, which says that propositions correspond to types, and proofs correspond to terms.
The basis of this correspondence is that an inhabitant of a type is a proof that the type is inhabited. For example, the term
3 :: Int is a proof that you can construct some terminating value of type
What about types with no inhabitant? Taking some type known to have no inhabitants, like
Void, you can show that a type
a is uninhabited by producing a terminating term of type
a -> Void. Why? Because
a -> Void is inhabited only if
a is uninhabited, and a term of type
a -> Void is a proof that
a -> Void is inhabited!
This also has implications for function types - a term with type
a -> b is a function from terms of type
a to terms of type
b. You can equally consider it as a function from proofs of the proposition
a to proofs of the proposition
b - in other words, the function itself is a proof that
b, because if you have a proof that
a is true, you can obtain a proof that
b is true.
Other logical connectives also have equivalents in Haskell types.
Void, because you can't construct a proof for it;
a /\ b is the tuple (or product)
a \/ b is (the sum)
Either a b; and
Not a - the claim that
a is uninhabited - is precisely
a -> False.
True can be any inhabited type, but it's helpful to have a type with a canonical construction, so
True is normally
(), the empty tuple, which has the unique constructor
You can see the correspondence in these types -
(a, b) is inhabited if and only if both
b are inhabited. Similarly,
Either a b is inhabited if and only if at least one of
b is inhabited. Phrasing it in terms of proofs, if you have a proof of
a and a proof of
b, you can construct a proof of
a /\ b (and vice-versa) - and with a proof of
a, you can construct a proof of
a \/ b. With a proof of
a \/ b, you can destruct the proof to get either a proof for
Left a) or a proof for
For notation's sake, we write
a <-> b for the type
(a -> b) /\ (b -> a).
Intuistionistic (or constructive) logic is a subset of classical logic (the kind of logic you normally learn in a CS or Maths course). It behaves exactly like classical logic, but with one caveat - you can only construct proofs of a proposition.
To see what that means, consider the type of the law of the excluded middle -
forall a. a \/ Not a. For every type
a, one of these two terms must be constructable - either
a is inhabited, so you can construct a value of type
a is uninhabited, so you can construct a function of type
a -> Void.
But you can't write a terminating Haskell function with type
forall a. a \/ Not a - because it would require you to somehow decide if
a is inhabited, and then get a value of type
a if it was. In other words, you have to construct either a
Left a or a
Right (Not a), and you have no way to do either of those things.
There are lots of other consequences of this caveat: the following implications do not hold in intuitionistic logic - and similarly, you cannot write a terminating Haskell term for their type.
Not (Not a) -> a
(a -> b) -> (Not a \/ b)
Not (Not a /\ Not b) -> a \/ b
Proofs and the Tactic monad
Tactic monad is an indexed monad for which the monad state is the current proof goal, and the type argument is an additional hypothesis introduced at that proof step. Looking at its definition
data Tactic from to a = Tactic ((a -> to) -> from)
Tactic term represents a valid goal transformation - you are allowed to change a proof of
from into a proof of
to, and introduce the additional hypothesis
a, if you can use a proof of
a -> to to prove
For example, the
apply function has the signature
apply :: (a -> b) -> Tactic b a ()
Given a function
a -> b, it allows you to transform the goal from proving
b to proving
a - because once you prove
a, it will be possible to use the given function to produce a proof of
Some tactics introduce additional hypotheses - such as
intro :: Tactic (a -> b) b a
intro allows you to transform a goal of
a -> b to a goal of
b, giving you the hypothesis of type
a to bind into a variable. If you can use the proof of
a to construct a proof of
b, then the resulting function term is indeed a proof of
a -> b.
hout provides some tactics based on those used in
Coq - for example, you can
apply hypotheses to a goal; you can
split the proof a conjunction into proofs of its conjuncts; you can
intro a variable; you can
exists the witness of an existential goal; you can
rewrite propositions with equality; you can even
assert hypothesis and produce subgoals.
The full list of tactics is given in
Hout.Prover.Tactics, and it is possible to write your own using the type signature of the
Proofs in do notation
Tactic is an indexed monad, you can use the
do-notation package to write proofs in do notation, which end up looking quite similar to proofs in interactive proof assistants. Some advice for doing this is:
- use pattern-matching in binds, particularly when working with existential types. GHC has some unfortunate behaviour when trying to use
letin do notation when working with existential type arguments.
- Enable block arguments, and use do notation for subgoals
- If your final statement is a tactic that introduces a hypothesis, but the new goal is trivial
qedto end your proof.
The use of
Forall is limited by Haskell's lack of support for impredicative polymorphism - the instantiation of type variables with higher-ranked types. This makes it basically impossible to prove a
Forall using the
Tactic monad, since under the hood
Forall is just a Haskell type-level
Computations written in the proof style
hout also has the nice property of intuitionistic proof assistants that proofs are themselves terms, and can be run as Haskell code. This gives hout the alternative use of writing functions in a proof-y syntax using the
Tactic monad. For example, the
identity function can be written as
identity :: a -> a identity :: runProof $ Proof do a <- intro exact a