Gilith OpenTheory Repo - Upload Package

From joe at gilith.com Fri Apr 1 06:58:03 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:58:03 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] package upload failed In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Ramana, I have confirmed that I am able to upload packages (to my test repo, at least). Could you send me a link to your package tarball located at ~/.opentheory/packages/NAME-VERSION/NAME-VERSION.tgz so I can see if there are any issues with the particular package that is failing to upload? Cheers, Joe On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > Hi Ramana, > > Well I can't see anything immediately wrong with your setup, and my > server logs are also uninformative. > > Let me see whether I can still upload packages myself or if some > important bits have rotted. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: >> On 30 March 2016 at 17:33, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ramana, >>> >>> That doesn't look good, but I think perhaps I'm the only one who's >>> uploaded packages up until now, so perhaps it shouldn't be too >>> surprising there are bugs lurking. >> >> >> Actually I think I've uploaded a package before (called cl), but it was a >> long time ago. >> >>> >>> >>> Here are some questions to help debug the problem: >>> >>> Was there any output between executing the opentheory upload command >>> and the text you pasted? >> >> >> Yes: >> >> About to upload to gilith repo in 2 steps >> 1. Upload the package: >> hol-base-1.0 >> 2. Send a confirmation email to the package author: >> HOL developers >> Continue [y/N]? y >> started upload to gilith repo: >> http://opentheory.gilith.com/?upload=d3c0f4027d2d1ba9fadd9cec2d9691e8 >> >>> >>> What OS are you running? >> >> >> GNU >> >>> >>> >>> Can you verify that you get this response from this curl command: >>> >>> $ curl --silent --show-error --user-agent opentheory >>> http://opentheory.gilith.com/ >>> gilith repo: welcome >>> >> >> Verified: I get that response. >> >>> >>> What is the output of curl --version? >> >> >> curl 7.47.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.47.1 OpenSSL/1.0.2g zlib/1.2.8 >> libidn/1.32 libssh2/1.7.0 >> Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher http https imap imaps pop3 pop3s rtsp >> scp sftp smb smbs smtp smtps telnet tftp >> Features: AsynchDNS IDN IPv6 Largefile GSS-API Kerberos SPNEGO NTLM NTLM_WB >> SSL libz TLS-SRP UnixSockets >> >> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Ramana Kumar >>> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I am trying to upload a package to the Gilith OpenTheory repository, >>> > using >>> > the opentheory tool. It fails and does not really explain why. Here is >>> > the >>> > output: >>> > >>> > encountered error, so deleted upload to gilith repo >>> > >>> > FATAL ERROR: opentheory failed: >>> > error response from repo: >>> > >> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Gilith OpenTheory Repo - Upload Package>> > rel="stylesheet" >>> > type="text/css" href="../opentheory.css" />>> > type="image/x-icon" href="../favicon.ico" /> >>> > >>> > >>> >

>>> > >>> >

>> > class="image"> Elephant
>>> > and
>>> > Castle

Upload a Package

>>> > >>> >

The recommended way to upload packages is to use the >>> > >>> > opentheory >>> > >>> > package management tool, but it is also possible to manually >>> > upload package tarballs using the following form:

>> > id="main-clearer">

>>> > >>> > >>> > package upload failed >>> > package upload failed >>> > >>> > What could be wrong? >>> > Thanks, >>> > Ramana >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > opentheory-users mailing list >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> opentheory-users mailing list >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> From joe at gilith.com Fri Apr 1 07:05:04 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 00:05:04 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] redundant import check In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ramana, > In general, though, I note that it is effectively impossible to define a > constant in OpenTheory without also proving a theorem about it. > To get around this, I prove a trivial theorem (|- c = c) about a new > constant c to ensure its definition is picked up. I have thought about this limitation from time to time, but I have never found a compelling use case for exporting symbols with no defining properties. Can you tell me why you need to export symbols like this? > My original question was motivated by a problem that I still have. Namely, I > receive unexpected warnings about 2 different constants with the same name. > I thought this was because I hadn't imported the block that defines the > constant into all the blocks that use it, but (hopefully I checked this > right) if I add any of those import lines they are flagged as redundant. The > warning about different constants therefore looks like a red herring; the > resulting theory package doesn't appear to have any problems like unexpected > axioms or assumptions or ungrounded constants. If you have encountered a situation where removing a redundant import changes the resulting theory in any way (including introducing a new error about different constants with the same name), then something is wrong with the OpenTheory design or the implementation of it. I don't think there is much I can do without seeing an example of this happening, because to my mind it just shouldn't happen. Cheers, Joe From ramana at member.fsf.org Fri Apr 1 17:02:40 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 04:02:40 +1100 Subject: [opentheory-users] package upload failed In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: It should be at https://hol-theorem-prover.org/hol-base-1.0.tgz On 1 April 2016 at 17:58, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > Hi Ramana, > > I have confirmed that I am able to upload packages (to my test repo, > at least). Could you send me a link to your package tarball located at > > ~/.opentheory/packages/NAME-VERSION/NAME-VERSION.tgz > > so I can see if there are any issues with the particular package that > is failing to upload? > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > > Hi Ramana, > > > > Well I can't see anything immediately wrong with your setup, and my > > server logs are also uninformative. > > > > Let me see whether I can still upload packages myself or if some > > important bits have rotted. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joe > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > >> On 30 March 2016 at 17:33, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Ramana, > >>> > >>> That doesn't look good, but I think perhaps I'm the only one who's > >>> uploaded packages up until now, so perhaps it shouldn't be too > >>> surprising there are bugs lurking. > >> > >> > >> Actually I think I've uploaded a package before (called cl), but it was > a > >> long time ago. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Here are some questions to help debug the problem: > >>> > >>> Was there any output between executing the opentheory upload command > >>> and the text you pasted? > >> > >> > >> Yes: > >> > >> About to upload to gilith repo in 2 steps > >> 1. Upload the package: > >> hol-base-1.0 > >> 2. Send a confirmation email to the package author: > >> HOL developers > >> Continue [y/N]? y > >> started upload to gilith repo: > >> http://opentheory.gilith.com/?upload=d3c0f4027d2d1ba9fadd9cec2d9691e8 > >> > >>> > >>> What OS are you running? > >> > >> > >> GNU > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Can you verify that you get this response from this curl command: > >>> > >>> $ curl --silent --show-error --user-agent opentheory > >>> http://opentheory.gilith.com/ > >>> gilith repo: welcome > >>> > >> > >> Verified: I get that response. > >> > >>> > >>> What is the output of curl --version? > >> > >> > >> curl 7.47.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.47.1 OpenSSL/1.0.2g > zlib/1.2.8 > >> libidn/1.32 libssh2/1.7.0 > >> Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher http https imap imaps pop3 pop3s > rtsp > >> scp sftp smb smbs smtp smtps telnet tftp > >> Features: AsynchDNS IDN IPv6 Largefile GSS-API Kerberos SPNEGO NTLM > NTLM_WB > >> SSL libz TLS-SRP UnixSockets > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Joe > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Ramana Kumar > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hi, > >>> > > >>> > I am trying to upload a package to the Gilith OpenTheory repository, > >>> > using > >>> > the opentheory tool. It fails and does not really explain why. Here > is > >>> > the > >>> > output: > >>> > > >>> > encountered error, so deleted upload to gilith repo > >>> > > >>> > FATAL ERROR: opentheory failed: > >>> > error response from repo: > >>> > >>> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Gilith OpenTheory Repo - Upload Package >>> > rel="stylesheet" > >>> > type="text/css" href="../opentheory.css" /> >>> > type="image/x-icon" href="../favicon.ico" /> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >

> >>> > > >>> >

>>> > class="image">

alt="Elephant > >>> > and > >>> > Castle" />

Upload a Package

> >>> > > >>> >

The recommended way to upload packages is to use the > >>> > > >>> > opentheory > >>> > > >>> > package management tool, but it is also possible to manually > >>> > upload package tarballs using the following form:

>>> > id="main-clearer">

> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > package upload failed > >>> > package upload failed > >>> > > >>> > What could be wrong? > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Ramana > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > opentheory-users mailing list > >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com > >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >>> > > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> opentheory-users mailing list > >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> opentheory-users mailing list > >> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ramana at member.fsf.org Fri Apr 1 22:41:56 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 15:41:56 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] interpretation in separate file In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Joe, I would like to reopen this request. It seems like I'm going to be copying interpretations around a lot again. Cheers, Ramana On 4 March 2016 at 12:14, Ramana Kumar wrote: > Hi Joe, > > It turns out this is not so urgent for me since Michael and I came up with > another method: > Put all the article-combination stuff into one file uninterpreted.thy > (main block is a union), then turn that into uninterpreted.art, and finally > do the interpretation all at once (so it only appears in one file) in > interpreted.thy, whose main block is an article block for > "uninterpreted.art". > > However, interpretations from files would probably still be good for other > scenarios. I would tweak your suggested syntax to use "interpretation" > rather than "interpret-file", to match "article" (which also takes a > filename). > > Cheers, > Ramana > > On 5 March 2016 at 05:51, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >> Hi Ramana, >> >> I agree with you that it would be good for theory files to support >> pulling in interpretations from files. How about the following syntax: >> >> interpret-file: "file.int" >> >> inside a theory block? It probably makes sense to allow multiple of >> these, just like multiple >> >> interpret: type/const "X" as "Y" >> >> lines are allowed, but raise an error if the same symbol is >> interpreted in multiple ways. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> >> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ramana Kumar >> wrote: >> > Is it possible to include an interpretation in a theory file, rather >> than >> > having to write it out inline? Since I sometimes want to include a >> rather >> > large interpretation within multiple blocks within the same theory >> file, I >> > end up having to write a template file and then generate the real .thy >> file >> > from that, to avoid lots of copy-pasting. Is mine the recommended >> approach, >> > or is there a better way? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > opentheory-users mailing list >> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ramana at member.fsf.org Sun Apr 3 06:12:31 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 23:12:31 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] package upload failed In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: If you do happen to get it to work, don't upload that version though. I have made some tweaks in the meantime and don't want to have to bump the version number yet. On 1 April 2016 at 10:02, Ramana Kumar wrote: > It should be at https://hol-theorem-prover.org/hol-base-1.0.tgz > > On 1 April 2016 at 17:58, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >> Hi Ramana, >> >> I have confirmed that I am able to upload packages (to my test repo, >> at least). Could you send me a link to your package tarball located at >> >> ~/.opentheory/packages/NAME-VERSION/NAME-VERSION.tgz >> >> so I can see if there are any issues with the particular package that >> is failing to upload? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> > Hi Ramana, >> > >> > Well I can't see anything immediately wrong with your setup, and my >> > server logs are also uninformative. >> > >> > Let me see whether I can still upload packages myself or if some >> > important bits have rotted. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Joe >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Ramana Kumar >> wrote: >> >> On 30 March 2016 at 17:33, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Ramana, >> >>> >> >>> That doesn't look good, but I think perhaps I'm the only one who's >> >>> uploaded packages up until now, so perhaps it shouldn't be too >> >>> surprising there are bugs lurking. >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually I think I've uploaded a package before (called cl), but it >> was a >> >> long time ago. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Here are some questions to help debug the problem: >> >>> >> >>> Was there any output between executing the opentheory upload command >> >>> and the text you pasted? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes: >> >> >> >> About to upload to gilith repo in 2 steps >> >> 1. Upload the package: >> >> hol-base-1.0 >> >> 2. Send a confirmation email to the package author: >> >> HOL developers >> >> Continue [y/N]? y >> >> started upload to gilith repo: >> >> >> http://opentheory.gilith.com/?upload=d3c0f4027d2d1ba9fadd9cec2d9691e8 >> >> >> >>> >> >>> What OS are you running? >> >> >> >> >> >> GNU >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Can you verify that you get this response from this curl command: >> >>> >> >>> $ curl --silent --show-error --user-agent opentheory >> >>> http://opentheory.gilith.com/ >> >>> gilith repo: welcome >> >>> >> >> >> >> Verified: I get that response. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> What is the output of curl --version? >> >> >> >> >> >> curl 7.47.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.47.1 OpenSSL/1.0.2g >> zlib/1.2.8 >> >> libidn/1.32 libssh2/1.7.0 >> >> Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher http https imap imaps pop3 pop3s >> rtsp >> >> scp sftp smb smbs smtp smtps telnet tftp >> >> Features: AsynchDNS IDN IPv6 Largefile GSS-API Kerberos SPNEGO NTLM >> NTLM_WB >> >> SSL libz TLS-SRP UnixSockets >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> >> >>> Joe >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Ramana Kumar >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > Hi, >> >>> > >> >>> > I am trying to upload a package to the Gilith OpenTheory repository, >> >>> > using >> >>> > the opentheory tool. It fails and does not really explain why. Here >> is >> >>> > the >> >>> > output: >> >>> > >> >>> > encountered error, so deleted upload to gilith repo >> >>> > >> >>> > FATAL ERROR: opentheory failed: >> >>> > error response from repo: >> >>> > > >>> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > /> >> >>> > Gilith OpenTheory Repo - Upload Package> >>> > rel="stylesheet" >> >>> > type="text/css" href="../opentheory.css" />> >>> > type="image/x-icon" href="../favicon.ico" /> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >

>> >>> > >> >>> >

> >>> > class="image">

> alt="Elephant >> >>> > and >> >>> > Castle" />

Upload a Package

>> >>> > >> >>> >

The recommended way to upload packages is to use the >> >>> > >> >>> > opentheory >> >>> > >> >>> > package management tool, but it is also possible to manually >> >>> > upload package tarballs using the following form:

> >>> > id="main-clearer">

>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > package upload failed >> >>> > package upload failed >> >>> > >> >>> > What could be wrong? >> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> > Ramana >> >>> > >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > opentheory-users mailing list >> >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> opentheory-users mailing list >> >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> opentheory-users mailing list >> >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe at gilith.com Mon Apr 4 05:15:45 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 22:15:45 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] package upload failed In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Ramana, Thanks for the package, I've been able to reproduce the failure and eventually found the following line in a log file on the server: [Sat Apr 02 20:22:24 2016] [error] [client 50.139.49.79] PHP Warning: POST Content-Length of 11453882 bytes exceeds the limit of 8388608 bytes in Unknown on line 0 I have raised the post_max_size and upload_max_filesize to 20M in the php.ini, and I can now upload the package to the test repo. Please try the upload again (when you have finished tweaking it). Cheers, Joe On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > It should be at https://hol-theorem-prover.org/hol-base-1.0.tgz > > On 1 April 2016 at 17:58, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >> Hi Ramana, >> >> I have confirmed that I am able to upload packages (to my test repo, >> at least). Could you send me a link to your package tarball located at >> >> ~/.opentheory/packages/NAME-VERSION/NAME-VERSION.tgz >> >> so I can see if there are any issues with the particular package that >> is failing to upload? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> > Hi Ramana, >> > >> > Well I can't see anything immediately wrong with your setup, and my >> > server logs are also uninformative. >> > >> > Let me see whether I can still upload packages myself or if some >> > important bits have rotted. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Joe >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Ramana Kumar >> > wrote: >> >> On 30 March 2016 at 17:33, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Ramana, >> >>> >> >>> That doesn't look good, but I think perhaps I'm the only one who's >> >>> uploaded packages up until now, so perhaps it shouldn't be too >> >>> surprising there are bugs lurking. >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually I think I've uploaded a package before (called cl), but it was >> >> a >> >> long time ago. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Here are some questions to help debug the problem: >> >>> >> >>> Was there any output between executing the opentheory upload command >> >>> and the text you pasted? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes: >> >> >> >> About to upload to gilith repo in 2 steps >> >> 1. Upload the package: >> >> hol-base-1.0 >> >> 2. Send a confirmation email to the package author: >> >> HOL developers >> >> Continue [y/N]? y >> >> started upload to gilith repo: >> >> http://opentheory.gilith.com/?upload=d3c0f4027d2d1ba9fadd9cec2d9691e8 >> >> >> >>> >> >>> What OS are you running? >> >> >> >> >> >> GNU >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Can you verify that you get this response from this curl command: >> >>> >> >>> $ curl --silent --show-error --user-agent opentheory >> >>> http://opentheory.gilith.com/ >> >>> gilith repo: welcome >> >>> >> >> >> >> Verified: I get that response. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> What is the output of curl --version? >> >> >> >> >> >> curl 7.47.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) libcurl/7.47.1 OpenSSL/1.0.2g >> >> zlib/1.2.8 >> >> libidn/1.32 libssh2/1.7.0 >> >> Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher http https imap imaps pop3 pop3s >> >> rtsp >> >> scp sftp smb smbs smtp smtps telnet tftp >> >> Features: AsynchDNS IDN IPv6 Largefile GSS-API Kerberos SPNEGO NTLM >> >> NTLM_WB >> >> SSL libz TLS-SRP UnixSockets >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> >> >>> Joe >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Ramana Kumar >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > Hi, >> >>> > >> >>> > I am trying to upload a package to the Gilith OpenTheory repository, >> >>> > using >> >>> > the opentheory tool. It fails and does not really explain why. Here >> >>> > is >> >>> > the >> >>> > output: >> >>> > >> >>> > encountered error, so deleted upload to gilith repo >> >>> > >> >>> > FATAL ERROR: opentheory failed: >> >>> > error response from repo: >> >>> > > >>> > "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > /> >> >>> > Gilith OpenTheory Repo - Upload Package> >>> > rel="stylesheet" >> >>> > type="text/css" href="../opentheory.css" />> >>> > type="image/x-icon" href="../favicon.ico" /> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >

>> >>> > >> >>> >

> >>> > class="image">

> >>> > alt="Elephant >> >>> > and >> >>> > Castle" />

Upload a Package

>> >>> > >> >>> >

> >>> > id="main-clearer">

>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > package upload failed >> >>> > package upload failed >> >>> > >> >>> > What could be wrong? >> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> > Ramana >> >>> > >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > opentheory-users mailing list >> >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> opentheory-users mailing list >> >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> opentheory-users mailing list >> >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > From joe at gilith.com Mon Apr 4 05:16:22 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 22:16:22 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] interpretation in separate file In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Sure thing, I'll work on adding this feature. Cheers, Joe On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I would like to reopen this request. It seems like I'm going to be copying > interpretations around a lot again. > > Cheers, > Ramana > > On 4 March 2016 at 12:14, Ramana Kumar wrote: >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> It turns out this is not so urgent for me since Michael and I came up with >> another method: >> Put all the article-combination stuff into one file uninterpreted.thy >> (main block is a union), then turn that into uninterpreted.art, and finally >> do the interpretation all at once (so it only appears in one file) in >> interpreted.thy, whose main block is an article block for >> "uninterpreted.art". >> >> However, interpretations from files would probably still be good for other >> scenarios. I would tweak your suggested syntax to use "interpretation" >> rather than "interpret-file", to match "article" (which also takes a >> filename). >> >> Cheers, >> Ramana >> >> On 5 March 2016 at 05:51, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ramana, >>> >>> I agree with you that it would be good for theory files to support >>> pulling in interpretations from files. How about the following syntax: >>> >>> interpret-file: "file.int" >>> >>> inside a theory block? It probably makes sense to allow multiple of >>> these, just like multiple >>> >>> interpret: type/const "X" as "Y" >>> >>> lines are allowed, but raise an error if the same symbol is >>> interpreted in multiple ways. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ramana Kumar >>> wrote: >>> > Is it possible to include an interpretation in a theory file, rather >>> > than >>> > having to write it out inline? Since I sometimes want to include a >>> > rather >>> > large interpretation within multiple blocks within the same theory >>> > file, I >>> > end up having to write a template file and then generate the real .thy >>> > file >>> > from that, to avoid lots of copy-pasting. Is mine the recommended >>> > approach, >>> > or is there a better way? >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > opentheory-users mailing list >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> opentheory-users mailing list >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > From ramana at member.fsf.org Sun Apr 10 20:54:31 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:54:31 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] extending the standard library Message-ID: Hi Joe, You will have seen that the HOL developers have uploaded a package called hol-base to the Gilith repo. The purpose of this package is twofold: 1. It proves many useful theorems as found in the basic libraries of the HOL theorem prover. 2. It serves to satisfy the assumptions of further theories developed in the HOL theorem prover, by proving those assumptions using only the theorems of the OpenTheory standard library base package. For purpose 1 in particular, it seems to me that many of the constants defined by hol-base would benefit from residing in an appropriate place in OpenTheory's namespace hierarchy, and indeed some of the proofs from hol-base might beneficially be moved into the base package itself. (Currently, all constants defined by hol-base are in their own namespace.) Is the design of the standard library still evolving, and is it open to extension? Would you be willing to copy over any useful-looking constants? And/or settle on some namespace decisions? Cheers, Ramana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe at gilith.com Tue Apr 12 18:11:38 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:11:38 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] extending the standard library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ramana, The intent is for the standard theory library to always be evolving, but slowly, because it's supposed to contain the base theories that *every* HOL theorem prover supports. Looking through the theory I see a lot of defined constants that also occur in the OpenTheory standard library (e.g., list.UNZIP), and I was wondering why the HOL4 base theory has its own version? Cheers, Joe On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > Hi Joe, > > You will have seen that the HOL developers have uploaded a package called > hol-base to the Gilith repo. The purpose of this package is twofold: > > It proves many useful theorems as found in the basic libraries of the HOL > theorem prover. > It serves to satisfy the assumptions of further theories developed in the > HOL theorem prover, by proving those assumptions using only the theorems of > the OpenTheory standard library base package. > > For purpose 1 in particular, it seems to me that many of the constants > defined by hol-base would benefit from residing in an appropriate place in > OpenTheory's namespace hierarchy, and indeed some of the proofs from > hol-base might beneficially be moved into the base package itself. > (Currently, all constants defined by hol-base are in their own namespace.) > > Is the design of the standard library still evolving, and is it open to > extension? Would you be willing to copy over any useful-looking constants? > And/or settle on some namespace decisions? > > Cheers, > Ramana > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > From ramana at member.fsf.org Wed Apr 13 03:56:09 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:56:09 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] extending the standard library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The HOL4 base library has its own version of constants like Data.List.take and Number.Natural.- because it needs to prove theorems like: ? length (list.TAKE n xs) = if n ? length xs then n else length xs ? (?m. arithmetic.- 0 m = 0) ? ?m n. arithmetic.- (suc m) n = if m < n then 0 else suc (arithmetic.- m n) I don't think these theorems are provable using the OpenTheory standard library versions of those constants. However, I don't know whether Data.List.unzip suffers from this problem. If not, then the HOL4 base package should be updated to use the standard library constant. It would be helpful if you could make a list of any other similar updates that should be made. I don't think the current OpenTheory standard library base contains theories that every HOL theorem prover supports. There are constants like Data.List.nub, for example, which are not supported by HOL4. I'm not entirely sure whether being the intersection of what every HOL theorem prover supports is a good goal, but if that is the rule it should at least be followed :) However, my question was not solely about the base package, but about the naming scheme for the standard library. If there are useful constants from other theorem provers (like, say, HOL4's list.GENLIST or list.MAP2), I think their name and characterising theorems should be fit into the OpenTheory namespace (Data.List, for example) in a standardised way, even if they don't make it into the base package itself. What do you think of that? I envision OpenTheory being used for the twin goals of portability (where being an intersection is good) and designing a rich, cleanly organised, useful standard library of HOL theorems (where being a union is good). These activities can happen simultaneously in different OpenTheory standard packages. On 13 April 2016 at 04:11, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > Hi Ramana, > > The intent is for the standard theory library to always be evolving, > but slowly, because it's supposed to contain the base theories that > *every* HOL theorem prover supports. > > Looking through the theory I see a lot of defined constants that also > occur in the OpenTheory standard library (e.g., list.UNZIP), and I was > wondering why the HOL4 base theory has its own version? > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > > Hi Joe, > > > > You will have seen that the HOL developers have uploaded a package called > > hol-base to the Gilith repo. The purpose of this package is twofold: > > > > It proves many useful theorems as found in the basic libraries of the HOL > > theorem prover. > > It serves to satisfy the assumptions of further theories developed in the > > HOL theorem prover, by proving those assumptions using only the theorems > of > > the OpenTheory standard library base package. > > > > For purpose 1 in particular, it seems to me that many of the constants > > defined by hol-base would benefit from residing in an appropriate place > in > > OpenTheory's namespace hierarchy, and indeed some of the proofs from > > hol-base might beneficially be moved into the base package itself. > > (Currently, all constants defined by hol-base are in their own > namespace.) > > > > Is the design of the standard library still evolving, and is it open to > > extension? Would you be willing to copy over any useful-looking > constants? > > And/or settle on some namespace decisions? > > > > Cheers, > > Ramana > > > > _______________________________________________ > > opentheory-users mailing list > > opentheory-users at gilith.com > > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ramana at member.fsf.org Wed Apr 13 04:56:57 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 14:56:57 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] extending the standard library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It looks like list.ZIP can't be mapped to Data.List.zip because the latter is curried. But I'm still looking into unzip. On 13 April 2016 at 13:56, Ramana Kumar wrote: > The HOL4 base library has its own version of constants like Data.List.take > and Number.Natural.- because it needs to prove theorems like: > > ? length (list.TAKE n xs) = if n ? length xs then n else length xs > > ? (?m. arithmetic.- 0 m = 0) ? > ?m n. > arithmetic.- (suc m) n = if m < n then 0 else suc (arithmetic.- m n) > I don't think these theorems are provable using the OpenTheory standard > library versions of those constants. > > However, I don't know whether Data.List.unzip suffers from this problem. > If not, then the HOL4 base package should be updated to use the standard > library constant. It would be helpful if you could make a list of any other > similar updates that should be made. > > I don't think the current OpenTheory standard library base contains > theories that every HOL theorem prover supports. There are constants like > Data.List.nub, for example, which are not supported by HOL4. I'm not > entirely sure whether being the intersection of what every HOL theorem > prover supports is a good goal, but if that is the rule it should at least > be followed :) > > However, my question was not solely about the base package, but about the > naming scheme for the standard library. If there are useful constants from > other theorem provers (like, say, HOL4's list.GENLIST or list.MAP2), I > think their name and characterising theorems should be fit into the > OpenTheory namespace (Data.List, for example) in a standardised way, even > if they don't make it into the base package itself. What do you think of > that? > > I envision OpenTheory being used for the twin goals of portability (where > being an intersection is good) and designing a rich, cleanly organised, > useful standard library of HOL theorems (where being a union is good). > These activities can happen simultaneously in different OpenTheory standard > packages. > > On 13 April 2016 at 04:11, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >> Hi Ramana, >> >> The intent is for the standard theory library to always be evolving, >> but slowly, because it's supposed to contain the base theories that >> *every* HOL theorem prover supports. >> >> Looking through the theory I see a lot of defined constants that also >> occur in the OpenTheory standard library (e.g., list.UNZIP), and I was >> wondering why the HOL4 base theory has its own version? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ramana Kumar >> wrote: >> > Hi Joe, >> > >> > You will have seen that the HOL developers have uploaded a package >> called >> > hol-base to the Gilith repo. The purpose of this package is twofold: >> > >> > It proves many useful theorems as found in the basic libraries of the >> HOL >> > theorem prover. >> > It serves to satisfy the assumptions of further theories developed in >> the >> > HOL theorem prover, by proving those assumptions using only the >> theorems of >> > the OpenTheory standard library base package. >> > >> > For purpose 1 in particular, it seems to me that many of the constants >> > defined by hol-base would benefit from residing in an appropriate place >> in >> > OpenTheory's namespace hierarchy, and indeed some of the proofs from >> > hol-base might beneficially be moved into the base package itself. >> > (Currently, all constants defined by hol-base are in their own >> namespace.) >> > >> > Is the design of the standard library still evolving, and is it open to >> > extension? Would you be willing to copy over any useful-looking >> constants? >> > And/or settle on some namespace decisions? >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Ramana >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > opentheory-users mailing list >> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From konrad.slind at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 05:38:19 2016 From: konrad.slind at gmail.com (Konrad Slind) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:38:19 -0500 Subject: [opentheory-users] extending the standard library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Re: MAP2 in HOL4. This is an example of an underspecified function. I recall having to redefine map2 to completely specify it in order to get it through the HOL-->CakeML translator. So, presumably, different systems can and will define common partial functions differently, as either underspecified or completely specified. Is there an OpenTheory policy on this, for its standard library? Konrad. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > It looks like list.ZIP can't be mapped to Data.List.zip because the latter > is curried. But I'm still looking into unzip. > > On 13 April 2016 at 13:56, Ramana Kumar wrote: > >> The HOL4 base library has its own version of constants like >> Data.List.take and Number.Natural.- because it needs to prove theorems like: >> >> ? length (list.TAKE n xs) = if n ? length xs then n else length xs >> >> ? (?m. arithmetic.- 0 m = 0) ? >> ?m n. >> arithmetic.- (suc m) n = if m < n then 0 else suc (arithmetic.- m n) >> I don't think these theorems are provable using the OpenTheory standard >> library versions of those constants. >> >> However, I don't know whether Data.List.unzip suffers from this problem. >> If not, then the HOL4 base package should be updated to use the standard >> library constant. It would be helpful if you could make a list of any other >> similar updates that should be made. >> >> I don't think the current OpenTheory standard library base contains >> theories that every HOL theorem prover supports. There are constants like >> Data.List.nub, for example, which are not supported by HOL4. I'm not >> entirely sure whether being the intersection of what every HOL theorem >> prover supports is a good goal, but if that is the rule it should at least >> be followed :) >> >> However, my question was not solely about the base package, but about the >> naming scheme for the standard library. If there are useful constants from >> other theorem provers (like, say, HOL4's list.GENLIST or list.MAP2), I >> think their name and characterising theorems should be fit into the >> OpenTheory namespace (Data.List, for example) in a standardised way, even >> if they don't make it into the base package itself. What do you think of >> that? >> >> I envision OpenTheory being used for the twin goals of portability (where >> being an intersection is good) and designing a rich, cleanly organised, >> useful standard library of HOL theorems (where being a union is good). >> These activities can happen simultaneously in different OpenTheory standard >> packages. >> >> On 13 April 2016 at 04:11, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >>> Hi Ramana, >>> >>> The intent is for the standard theory library to always be evolving, >>> but slowly, because it's supposed to contain the base theories that >>> *every* HOL theorem prover supports. >>> >>> Looking through the theory I see a lot of defined constants that also >>> occur in the OpenTheory standard library (e.g., list.UNZIP), and I was >>> wondering why the HOL4 base theory has its own version? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ramana Kumar >>> wrote: >>> > Hi Joe, >>> > >>> > You will have seen that the HOL developers have uploaded a package >>> called >>> > hol-base to the Gilith repo. The purpose of this package is twofold: >>> > >>> > It proves many useful theorems as found in the basic libraries of the >>> HOL >>> > theorem prover. >>> > It serves to satisfy the assumptions of further theories developed in >>> the >>> > HOL theorem prover, by proving those assumptions using only the >>> theorems of >>> > the OpenTheory standard library base package. >>> > >>> > For purpose 1 in particular, it seems to me that many of the constants >>> > defined by hol-base would benefit from residing in an appropriate >>> place in >>> > OpenTheory's namespace hierarchy, and indeed some of the proofs from >>> > hol-base might beneficially be moved into the base package itself. >>> > (Currently, all constants defined by hol-base are in their own >>> namespace.) >>> > >>> > Is the design of the standard library still evolving, and is it open to >>> > extension? Would you be willing to copy over any useful-looking >>> constants? >>> > And/or settle on some namespace decisions? >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > Ramana >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > opentheory-users mailing list >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> opentheory-users mailing list >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ramana at member.fsf.org Wed Apr 13 07:15:25 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:15:25 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] extending the standard library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Data.List.unzip works as a replacement for list.UNZIP. However, I will hold back for a bit on making a new version of hol-base in case there are further improvements arising from this thread. On 13 April 2016 at 15:38, Konrad Slind wrote: > Re: MAP2 in HOL4. This is an example of an underspecified function. I > recall having > to redefine map2 to completely specify it in order to get it through the > HOL-->CakeML translator. > > So, presumably, different systems can and will define common partial > functions differently, as > either underspecified or completely specified. Is there an OpenTheory > policy on this, for > its standard library? > > Konrad. > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > >> It looks like list.ZIP can't be mapped to Data.List.zip because the >> latter is curried. But I'm still looking into unzip. >> >> On 13 April 2016 at 13:56, Ramana Kumar wrote: >> >>> The HOL4 base library has its own version of constants like >>> Data.List.take and Number.Natural.- because it needs to prove theorems like: >>> >>> ? length (list.TAKE n xs) = if n ? length xs then n else length xs >>> >>> ? (?m. arithmetic.- 0 m = 0) ? >>> ?m n. >>> arithmetic.- (suc m) n = if m < n then 0 else suc (arithmetic.- m n) >>> I don't think these theorems are provable using the OpenTheory standard >>> library versions of those constants. >>> >>> However, I don't know whether Data.List.unzip suffers from this problem. >>> If not, then the HOL4 base package should be updated to use the standard >>> library constant. It would be helpful if you could make a list of any other >>> similar updates that should be made. >>> >>> I don't think the current OpenTheory standard library base contains >>> theories that every HOL theorem prover supports. There are constants like >>> Data.List.nub, for example, which are not supported by HOL4. I'm not >>> entirely sure whether being the intersection of what every HOL theorem >>> prover supports is a good goal, but if that is the rule it should at least >>> be followed :) >>> >>> However, my question was not solely about the base package, but about >>> the naming scheme for the standard library. If there are useful constants >>> from other theorem provers (like, say, HOL4's list.GENLIST or list.MAP2), I >>> think their name and characterising theorems should be fit into the >>> OpenTheory namespace (Data.List, for example) in a standardised way, even >>> if they don't make it into the base package itself. What do you think of >>> that? >>> >>> I envision OpenTheory being used for the twin goals of portability >>> (where being an intersection is good) and designing a rich, cleanly >>> organised, useful standard library of HOL theorems (where being a union is >>> good). These activities can happen simultaneously in different OpenTheory >>> standard packages. >>> >>> On 13 April 2016 at 04:11, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Ramana, >>>> >>>> The intent is for the standard theory library to always be evolving, >>>> but slowly, because it's supposed to contain the base theories that >>>> *every* HOL theorem prover supports. >>>> >>>> Looking through the theory I see a lot of defined constants that also >>>> occur in the OpenTheory standard library (e.g., list.UNZIP), and I was >>>> wondering why the HOL4 base theory has its own version? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Ramana Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi Joe, >>>> > >>>> > You will have seen that the HOL developers have uploaded a package >>>> called >>>> > hol-base to the Gilith repo. The purpose of this package is twofold: >>>> > >>>> > It proves many useful theorems as found in the basic libraries of the >>>> HOL >>>> > theorem prover. >>>> > It serves to satisfy the assumptions of further theories developed in >>>> the >>>> > HOL theorem prover, by proving those assumptions using only the >>>> theorems of >>>> > the OpenTheory standard library base package. >>>> > >>>> > For purpose 1 in particular, it seems to me that many of the constants >>>> > defined by hol-base would benefit from residing in an appropriate >>>> place in >>>> > OpenTheory's namespace hierarchy, and indeed some of the proofs from >>>> > hol-base might beneficially be moved into the base package itself. >>>> > (Currently, all constants defined by hol-base are in their own >>>> namespace.) >>>> > >>>> > Is the design of the standard library still evolving, and is it open >>>> to >>>> > extension? Would you be willing to copy over any useful-looking >>>> constants? >>>> > And/or settle on some namespace decisions? >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > Ramana >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > opentheory-users mailing list >>>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >>>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> opentheory-users mailing list >>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >>>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ramana at member.fsf.org Wed Apr 20 01:12:01 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:12:01 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] Overflow Message-ID: Hello, I keep running into this problem: FATAL ERROR: opentheory exception: Overflow What does it mean? Thanks, Ramana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe at gilith.com Wed Apr 20 16:28:08 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:28:08 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] Overflow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It means that an integer overflow is occurring somewhere in the processing, which shouldn't happen. If you give me a test case where this occurs (the smaller the better) I can look into it. Cheers, Joe On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > Hello, > > I keep running into this problem: > > FATAL ERROR: opentheory exception: > Overflow > > What does it mean? > > Thanks, > Ramana > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > From joe at gilith.com Wed Apr 20 16:40:12 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:40:12 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] interpretation in separate file In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: By the way, I am working on adding this feature, but for various technical reasons of how the code is structured it's turning out to be non-trivial. I'll let you know when the feature is added. Cheers, Joe On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > Sure thing, I'll work on adding this feature. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: >> Hi Joe, >> >> I would like to reopen this request. It seems like I'm going to be copying >> interpretations around a lot again. >> >> Cheers, >> Ramana >> >> On 4 March 2016 at 12:14, Ramana Kumar wrote: >>> >>> Hi Joe, >>> >>> It turns out this is not so urgent for me since Michael and I came up with >>> another method: >>> Put all the article-combination stuff into one file uninterpreted.thy >>> (main block is a union), then turn that into uninterpreted.art, and finally >>> do the interpretation all at once (so it only appears in one file) in >>> interpreted.thy, whose main block is an article block for >>> "uninterpreted.art". >>> >>> However, interpretations from files would probably still be good for other >>> scenarios. I would tweak your suggested syntax to use "interpretation" >>> rather than "interpret-file", to match "article" (which also takes a >>> filename). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Ramana >>> >>> On 5 March 2016 at 05:51, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ramana, >>>> >>>> I agree with you that it would be good for theory files to support >>>> pulling in interpretations from files. How about the following syntax: >>>> >>>> interpret-file: "file.int" >>>> >>>> inside a theory block? It probably makes sense to allow multiple of >>>> these, just like multiple >>>> >>>> interpret: type/const "X" as "Y" >>>> >>>> lines are allowed, but raise an error if the same symbol is >>>> interpreted in multiple ways. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Joe >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ramana Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> > Is it possible to include an interpretation in a theory file, rather >>>> > than >>>> > having to write it out inline? Since I sometimes want to include a >>>> > rather >>>> > large interpretation within multiple blocks within the same theory >>>> > file, I >>>> > end up having to write a template file and then generate the real .thy >>>> > file >>>> > from that, to avoid lots of copy-pasting. Is mine the recommended >>>> > approach, >>>> > or is there a better way? >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > opentheory-users mailing list >>>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >>>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> opentheory-users mailing list >>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >>>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> From ramana at member.fsf.org Thu Apr 21 04:37:29 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:37:29 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] interpretation in separate file In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Cool. Thanks! On 21 April 2016 at 02:40, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > By the way, I am working on adding this feature, but for various > technical reasons of how the code is structured it's turning out to be > non-trivial. I'll let you know when the feature is added. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > > Sure thing, I'll work on adding this feature. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joe > > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > >> Hi Joe, > >> > >> I would like to reopen this request. It seems like I'm going to be > copying > >> interpretations around a lot again. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Ramana > >> > >> On 4 March 2016 at 12:14, Ramana Kumar wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Joe, > >>> > >>> It turns out this is not so urgent for me since Michael and I came up > with > >>> another method: > >>> Put all the article-combination stuff into one file uninterpreted.thy > >>> (main block is a union), then turn that into uninterpreted.art, and > finally > >>> do the interpretation all at once (so it only appears in one file) in > >>> interpreted.thy, whose main block is an article block for > >>> "uninterpreted.art". > >>> > >>> However, interpretations from files would probably still be good for > other > >>> scenarios. I would tweak your suggested syntax to use "interpretation" > >>> rather than "interpret-file", to match "article" (which also takes a > >>> filename). > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Ramana > >>> > >>> On 5 March 2016 at 05:51, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Ramana, > >>>> > >>>> I agree with you that it would be good for theory files to support > >>>> pulling in interpretations from files. How about the following syntax: > >>>> > >>>> interpret-file: "file.int" > >>>> > >>>> inside a theory block? It probably makes sense to allow multiple of > >>>> these, just like multiple > >>>> > >>>> interpret: type/const "X" as "Y" > >>>> > >>>> lines are allowed, but raise an error if the same symbol is > >>>> interpreted in multiple ways. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> Joe > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ramana Kumar > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > Is it possible to include an interpretation in a theory file, rather > >>>> > than > >>>> > having to write it out inline? Since I sometimes want to include a > >>>> > rather > >>>> > large interpretation within multiple blocks within the same theory > >>>> > file, I > >>>> > end up having to write a template file and then generate the real > .thy > >>>> > file > >>>> > from that, to avoid lots of copy-pasting. Is mine the recommended > >>>> > approach, > >>>> > or is there a better way? > >>>> > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > opentheory-users mailing list > >>>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com > >>>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> opentheory-users mailing list > >>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >>>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> opentheory-users mailing list > >> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe at gilith.com Sun Apr 24 06:58:40 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:58:40 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] interpretation in separate file In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Ramana, The latest version of the opentheory tool (release 20160423) now includes support for interpretation: "file.int" lines in theory files, as documented here: http://www.gilith.com/research/opentheory/theory.html It's lightly tested, so please let me know if you discover anything odd with the new feature. Cheers, Joe On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > Cool. Thanks! > > On 21 April 2016 at 02:40, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >> By the way, I am working on adding this feature, but for various >> technical reasons of how the code is structured it's turning out to be >> non-trivial. I'll let you know when the feature is added. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> > Sure thing, I'll work on adding this feature. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Joe >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ramana Kumar >> > wrote: >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> >> >> I would like to reopen this request. It seems like I'm going to be >> >> copying >> >> interpretations around a lot again. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Ramana >> >> >> >> On 4 March 2016 at 12:14, Ramana Kumar wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Joe, >> >>> >> >>> It turns out this is not so urgent for me since Michael and I came up >> >>> with >> >>> another method: >> >>> Put all the article-combination stuff into one file uninterpreted.thy >> >>> (main block is a union), then turn that into uninterpreted.art, and >> >>> finally >> >>> do the interpretation all at once (so it only appears in one file) in >> >>> interpreted.thy, whose main block is an article block for >> >>> "uninterpreted.art". >> >>> >> >>> However, interpretations from files would probably still be good for >> >>> other >> >>> scenarios. I would tweak your suggested syntax to use "interpretation" >> >>> rather than "interpret-file", to match "article" (which also takes a >> >>> filename). >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> Ramana >> >>> >> >>> On 5 March 2016 at 05:51, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Ramana, >> >>>> >> >>>> I agree with you that it would be good for theory files to support >> >>>> pulling in interpretations from files. How about the following >> >>>> syntax: >> >>>> >> >>>> interpret-file: "file.int" >> >>>> >> >>>> inside a theory block? It probably makes sense to allow multiple of >> >>>> these, just like multiple >> >>>> >> >>>> interpret: type/const "X" as "Y" >> >>>> >> >>>> lines are allowed, but raise an error if the same symbol is >> >>>> interpreted in multiple ways. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> >> >>>> Joe >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ramana Kumar >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > Is it possible to include an interpretation in a theory file, >> >>>> > rather >> >>>> > than >> >>>> > having to write it out inline? Since I sometimes want to include a >> >>>> > rather >> >>>> > large interpretation within multiple blocks within the same theory >> >>>> > file, I >> >>>> > end up having to write a template file and then generate the real >> >>>> > .thy >> >>>> > file >> >>>> > from that, to avoid lots of copy-pasting. Is mine the recommended >> >>>> > approach, >> >>>> > or is there a better way? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>>> > opentheory-users mailing list >> >>>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >>>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> opentheory-users mailing list >> >>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >>>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> opentheory-users mailing list >> >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > From ramana at member.fsf.org Tue Apr 26 06:30:43 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 16:30:43 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] interpretation in separate file In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Joe, Thanks for implementing this! I think the documentation isn't very clear about what interpretation files should contain. However, I think I figured it out to some extent: They should have lines like the "interpret:" lines except without the leading "interpret:", and blank lines are allowed. I'm trying it out more now, and will let you know if I run into anything. Cheers, Ramana On 24 April 2016 at 16:58, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > Hi Ramana, > > The latest version of the opentheory tool (release 20160423) now > includes support for > > interpretation: "file.int" > > lines in theory files, as documented here: > > http://www.gilith.com/research/opentheory/theory.html > > It's lightly tested, so please let me know if you discover anything > odd with the new feature. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > > Cool. Thanks! > > > > On 21 April 2016 at 02:40, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >> > >> By the way, I am working on adding this feature, but for various > >> technical reasons of how the code is structured it's turning out to be > >> non-trivial. I'll let you know when the feature is added. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Joe Leslie-Hurd > wrote: > >> > Sure thing, I'll work on adding this feature. > >> > > >> > Cheers, > >> > > >> > Joe > >> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ramana Kumar > >> > wrote: > >> >> Hi Joe, > >> >> > >> >> I would like to reopen this request. It seems like I'm going to be > >> >> copying > >> >> interpretations around a lot again. > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> Ramana > >> >> > >> >> On 4 March 2016 at 12:14, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi Joe, > >> >>> > >> >>> It turns out this is not so urgent for me since Michael and I came > up > >> >>> with > >> >>> another method: > >> >>> Put all the article-combination stuff into one file > uninterpreted.thy > >> >>> (main block is a union), then turn that into uninterpreted.art, and > >> >>> finally > >> >>> do the interpretation all at once (so it only appears in one file) > in > >> >>> interpreted.thy, whose main block is an article block for > >> >>> "uninterpreted.art". > >> >>> > >> >>> However, interpretations from files would probably still be good for > >> >>> other > >> >>> scenarios. I would tweak your suggested syntax to use > "interpretation" > >> >>> rather than "interpret-file", to match "article" (which also takes a > >> >>> filename). > >> >>> > >> >>> Cheers, > >> >>> Ramana > >> >>> > >> >>> On 5 March 2016 at 05:51, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi Ramana, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I agree with you that it would be good for theory files to support > >> >>>> pulling in interpretations from files. How about the following > >> >>>> syntax: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> interpret-file: "file.int" > >> >>>> > >> >>>> inside a theory block? It probably makes sense to allow multiple of > >> >>>> these, just like multiple > >> >>>> > >> >>>> interpret: type/const "X" as "Y" > >> >>>> > >> >>>> lines are allowed, but raise an error if the same symbol is > >> >>>> interpreted in multiple ways. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Cheers, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Joe > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ramana Kumar < > ramana at member.fsf.org> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>> > Is it possible to include an interpretation in a theory file, > >> >>>> > rather > >> >>>> > than > >> >>>> > having to write it out inline? Since I sometimes want to include > a > >> >>>> > rather > >> >>>> > large interpretation within multiple blocks within the same > theory > >> >>>> > file, I > >> >>>> > end up having to write a template file and then generate the real > >> >>>> > .thy > >> >>>> > file > >> >>>> > from that, to avoid lots of copy-pasting. Is mine the recommended > >> >>>> > approach, > >> >>>> > or is there a better way? > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> > opentheory-users mailing list > >> >>>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com > >> >>>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >> >>>> opentheory-users mailing list > >> >>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >> >>>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> opentheory-users mailing list > >> >> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >> >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> opentheory-users mailing list > >> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > opentheory-users mailing list > > opentheory-users at gilith.com > > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe at gilith.com Tue Apr 26 06:54:06 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:54:06 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] interpretation in separate file In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Yes, the documentation could definitely be improved by describing interpretation files. Your reverse engineering is quite correct, plus comments are also allowed. For an example take a look at the interpretation file used by the latest version of the byte-def theory: http://opentheory.gilith.com/opentheory/packages/byte-def-1.98/word.int Cheers, Joe On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > Hi Joe, > > Thanks for implementing this! > > I think the documentation isn't very clear about what interpretation files > should contain. However, I think I figured it out to some extent: They > should have lines like the "interpret:" lines except without the leading > "interpret:", and blank lines are allowed. > > I'm trying it out more now, and will let you know if I run into anything. > > Cheers, > Ramana > > On 24 April 2016 at 16:58, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >> Hi Ramana, >> >> The latest version of the opentheory tool (release 20160423) now >> includes support for >> >> interpretation: "file.int" >> >> lines in theory files, as documented here: >> >> http://www.gilith.com/research/opentheory/theory.html >> >> It's lightly tested, so please let me know if you discover anything >> odd with the new feature. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Ramana Kumar >> wrote: >> > Cool. Thanks! >> > >> > On 21 April 2016 at 02:40, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >> >> >> By the way, I am working on adding this feature, but for various >> >> technical reasons of how the code is structured it's turning out to be >> >> non-trivial. I'll let you know when the feature is added. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Joe >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Joe Leslie-Hurd >> >> wrote: >> >> > Sure thing, I'll work on adding this feature. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > >> >> > Joe >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ramana Kumar >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> >> >> >> >> I would like to reopen this request. It seems like I'm going to be >> >> >> copying >> >> >> interpretations around a lot again. >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Ramana >> >> >> >> >> >> On 4 March 2016 at 12:14, Ramana Kumar >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Hi Joe, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> It turns out this is not so urgent for me since Michael and I came >> >> >>> up >> >> >>> with >> >> >>> another method: >> >> >>> Put all the article-combination stuff into one file >> >> >>> uninterpreted.thy >> >> >>> (main block is a union), then turn that into uninterpreted.art, and >> >> >>> finally >> >> >>> do the interpretation all at once (so it only appears in one file) >> >> >>> in >> >> >>> interpreted.thy, whose main block is an article block for >> >> >>> "uninterpreted.art". >> >> >>> >> >> >>> However, interpretations from files would probably still be good >> >> >>> for >> >> >>> other >> >> >>> scenarios. I would tweak your suggested syntax to use >> >> >>> "interpretation" >> >> >>> rather than "interpret-file", to match "article" (which also takes >> >> >>> a >> >> >>> filename). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Cheers, >> >> >>> Ramana >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 5 March 2016 at 05:51, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hi Ramana, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I agree with you that it would be good for theory files to support >> >> >>>> pulling in interpretations from files. How about the following >> >> >>>> syntax: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> interpret-file: "file.int" >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> inside a theory block? It probably makes sense to allow multiple >> >> >>>> of >> >> >>>> these, just like multiple >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> interpret: type/const "X" as "Y" >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> lines are allowed, but raise an error if the same symbol is >> >> >>>> interpreted in multiple ways. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Joe >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ramana Kumar >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>>> > Is it possible to include an interpretation in a theory file, >> >> >>>> > rather >> >> >>>> > than >> >> >>>> > having to write it out inline? Since I sometimes want to include >> >> >>>> > a >> >> >>>> > rather >> >> >>>> > large interpretation within multiple blocks within the same >> >> >>>> > theory >> >> >>>> > file, I >> >> >>>> > end up having to write a template file and then generate the >> >> >>>> > real >> >> >>>> > .thy >> >> >>>> > file >> >> >>>> > from that, to avoid lots of copy-pasting. Is mine the >> >> >>>> > recommended >> >> >>>> > approach, >> >> >>>> > or is there a better way? >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>> > opentheory-users mailing list >> >> >>>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >> >>>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >>>> opentheory-users mailing list >> >> >>>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >> >>>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> opentheory-users mailing list >> >> >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >> >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> opentheory-users mailing list >> >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > opentheory-users mailing list >> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > From ramana at member.fsf.org Wed Apr 27 00:45:47 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:45:47 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] Overflow In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Unfortunately, I have not been able to produce a small test case, but there is a large-ish one (12MB compressed) available here: https://hol-theorem-prover.org/overflow.tar.gz. It contains three files, hol4-words.thy, hol4-words-unint.art, and hol4.int. To produce the error, edit the paths in hol4-words.thy to point to the other two files, then try this: opentheory info --theory hol4-words.thy On 21 April 2016 at 02:28, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > It means that an integer overflow is occurring somewhere in the > processing, which shouldn't happen. If you give me a test case where > this occurs (the smaller the better) I can look into it. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I keep running into this problem: > > > > FATAL ERROR: opentheory exception: > > Overflow > > > > What does it mean? > > > > Thanks, > > Ramana > > > > _______________________________________________ > > opentheory-users mailing list > > opentheory-users at gilith.com > > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joe at gilith.com Wed Apr 27 21:35:42 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:35:42 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] Overflow In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Ramana, Thanks for the testcase, I can reproduce your bug and I'll try to root-cause it. Cheers, Joe On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: > Unfortunately, I have not been able to produce a small test case, but there > is a large-ish one (12MB compressed) available here: > https://hol-theorem-prover.org/overflow.tar.gz. > > It contains three files, hol4-words.thy, hol4-words-unint.art, and hol4.int. > > To produce the error, edit the paths in hol4-words.thy to point to the other > two files, then try this: > opentheory info --theory hol4-words.thy > > On 21 April 2016 at 02:28, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >> >> It means that an integer overflow is occurring somewhere in the >> processing, which shouldn't happen. If you give me a test case where >> this occurs (the smaller the better) I can look into it. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joe >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Ramana Kumar >> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I keep running into this problem: >> > >> > FATAL ERROR: opentheory exception: >> > Overflow >> > >> > What does it mean? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ramana >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > opentheory-users mailing list >> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > From joe at gilith.com Thu Apr 28 05:32:05 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 22:32:05 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] The opentheory tool is now a github project Message-ID: I've just created a github repo for the opentheory tool https://github.com/gilith/opentheory which I intend to use for development from now on. Official releases will continue to be available at http://www.gilith.com/software/opentheory/ and this mailing list will continue to be the place for discussions about OpenTheory, but issues related to the opentheory tool can be filed (and tracked) using github, and improvements can be offered as pull requests :-) Cheers, Joe From joe at gilith.com Thu Apr 28 07:27:23 2016 From: joe at gilith.com (Joe Leslie-Hurd) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:27:23 -0700 Subject: [opentheory-users] Overflow In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Ramana, This turned out to be a simple bug in how numerals were printed in OpenTheory: they were converted into ints by the tool and since your theory contained some large ints this caused an overflow. I've fixed the tool so it no longer converts through an int type, and now I can create the theory for your testcase without an overflow. The fix is both in the latest official version (release 20160428) and also checked into the new github repo. Cheers, Joe On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > Hi Ramana, > > Thanks for the testcase, I can reproduce your bug and I'll try to root-cause it. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ramana Kumar wrote: >> Unfortunately, I have not been able to produce a small test case, but there >> is a large-ish one (12MB compressed) available here: >> https://hol-theorem-prover.org/overflow.tar.gz. >> >> It contains three files, hol4-words.thy, hol4-words-unint.art, and hol4.int. >> >> To produce the error, edit the paths in hol4-words.thy to point to the other >> two files, then try this: >> opentheory info --theory hol4-words.thy >> >> On 21 April 2016 at 02:28, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: >>> >>> It means that an integer overflow is occurring somewhere in the >>> processing, which shouldn't happen. If you give me a test case where >>> this occurs (the smaller the better) I can look into it. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Ramana Kumar >>> wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > I keep running into this problem: >>> > >>> > FATAL ERROR: opentheory exception: >>> > Overflow >>> > >>> > What does it mean? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Ramana >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > opentheory-users mailing list >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> opentheory-users mailing list >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> opentheory-users mailing list >> opentheory-users at gilith.com >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users >> From ramana at member.fsf.org Thu Apr 28 09:41:36 2016 From: ramana at member.fsf.org (Ramana Kumar) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 19:41:36 +1000 Subject: [opentheory-users] Overflow In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Thanks! I'll try it out. On 28 April 2016 at 17:27, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > Hi Ramana, > > This turned out to be a simple bug in how numerals were printed in > OpenTheory: they were converted into ints by the tool and since your > theory contained some large ints this caused an overflow. > > I've fixed the tool so it no longer converts through an int type, and > now I can create the theory for your testcase without an overflow. > > The fix is both in the latest official version (release 20160428) and > also checked into the new github repo. > > Cheers, > > Joe > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > > Hi Ramana, > > > > Thanks for the testcase, I can reproduce your bug and I'll try to > root-cause it. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Joe > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ramana Kumar > wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I have not been able to produce a small test case, but > there > >> is a large-ish one (12MB compressed) available here: > >> https://hol-theorem-prover.org/overflow.tar.gz. > >> > >> It contains three files, hol4-words.thy, hol4-words-unint.art, and > hol4.int. > >> > >> To produce the error, edit the paths in hol4-words.thy to point to the > other > >> two files, then try this: > >> opentheory info --theory hol4-words.thy > >> > >> On 21 April 2016 at 02:28, Joe Leslie-Hurd wrote: > >>> > >>> It means that an integer overflow is occurring somewhere in the > >>> processing, which shouldn't happen. If you give me a test case where > >>> this occurs (the smaller the better) I can look into it. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> > >>> Joe > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Ramana Kumar > >>> wrote: > >>> > Hello, > >>> > > >>> > I keep running into this problem: > >>> > > >>> > FATAL ERROR: opentheory exception: > >>> > Overflow > >>> > > >>> > What does it mean? > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > Ramana > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > opentheory-users mailing list > >>> > opentheory-users at gilith.com > >>> > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >>> > > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> opentheory-users mailing list > >>> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >>> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> opentheory-users mailing list > >> opentheory-users at gilith.com > >> http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > >> > > _______________________________________________ > opentheory-users mailing list > opentheory-users at gilith.com > http://www.gilith.com/mailman/listinfo/opentheory-users > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

>> > href="..">Gilith >>> > OpenTheory Repo

Upload a Package

>>> > href="..">Gilith > >>> > OpenTheory Repo

Upload a Package

> >>> > href="..">Gilith >> >>> > OpenTheory Repo

Upload a Package

> >>> > href="..">Gilith >> >>> > OpenTheory Repo

Upload a Package