Content deleted Content added
Coq has been renamed to Rocq |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 11:
| developer = [[Chalmers University of Technology]]
| released = 1.0 – {{Start date and age|1999}}<br/>2.0 – {{Start date and age|2007}}
| latest release version = 2.
| latest release date = {{Start date and age|
| latest preview version =
| latest preview date =
Line 29:
</ref> The original Agda system was developed at Chalmers by Catarina Coquand in 1999.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://ocvs.cfv.jp/Agda/ |title=Agda: An Interactive Proof Editor |access-date=2014-10-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111008115843/http://ocvs.cfv.jp/Agda/ |archive-date=2011-10-08 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The current version, originally named Agda 2, is a full rewrite, which should be considered a new language that shares a name and tradition.
Agda is also a [[proof assistant]] based on the ''propositions-as-types'' paradigm ([[Curry–Howard correspondence]]), but unlike [[
Agda is based on Zhaohui Luo's unified theory of dependent types (UTT),<ref>Luo, Zhaohui. ''Computation and reasoning: a type theory for computer science''. Oxford University Press, Inc., 1994.</ref> a type theory similar to [[Intuitionistic type theory|Martin-Löf type theory]].
Agda is named after the [[Swedish language|Swedish]] song "Hönan Agda", written by [[Cornelis Vreeswijk]],<ref>{{cite web |title=[Agda] origin of "Agda"? (Agda mailing list)|url=https://lists.chalmers.se/pipermail/agda/2016/008867.html |access-date=24 October 2020}}</ref> which is about a [[Chicken#Terminology|hen]] named Agda. This alludes to the name of the theorem prover [[
== Features ==
Line 42:
Here is a definition of [[Peano axioms|Peano numbers]] in Agda:
<syntaxhighlight lang="agda">
</syntaxhighlight>
Basically, it means that there are two ways to construct a value of type <math>\mathbb{N}</math>, representing a natural number. To begin, <code>zero</code> is a natural number, and if <code>n</code> is a natural number, then <code>suc n</code>, standing for the [[Successor function|successor]] of <code>n</code>, is a natural number too.
Line 50:
Here is a definition of the "less than or equal" relation between two natural numbers:
<syntaxhighlight lang="agda">
</syntaxhighlight>
The first constructor, <code>z≤n</code>, corresponds to the axiom that zero is less than or equal to any natural number. The second constructor, <code>s≤s</code>, corresponds to an inference rule, allowing to turn a proof of <code>n ≤ m</code> into a proof of <code>suc n ≤ suc m</code>.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://github.com/agda/agda-stdlib/blob/master/src/Data/Nat.agda |title=Nat from Agda standard library |website=[[GitHub]] |access-date=2014-07-20}}</ref> So the value <code lang="agda">s≤s {zero} {suc zero} (z≤n {suc zero})</code> is a proof that one (the successor of zero), is less than or equal to two (the successor of one). The parameters provided in [[curly bracket]]s may be omitted if they can be inferred.
Line 59:
In core type theory, induction and recursion principles are used to prove theorems about [[inductive type]]s. In Agda, dependently typed pattern matching is used instead. For example, natural number addition can be defined like this:
<syntaxhighlight lang="agda">
</syntaxhighlight>
This way of writing recursive functions/inductive proofs is more natural than applying raw induction principles. In Agda, dependently typed pattern matching is a primitive of the language; the core language lacks the induction/recursion principles that pattern matching translates to.
=== Metavariables ===
One of the distinctive features of Agda, when compared with other similar systems such as [[
<syntaxhighlight lang="agda">
add : ℕ → ℕ → ℕ
</syntaxhighlight>
<code>?</code> here is a metavariable. When interacting with the system in Emacs mode, it will show the user the expected type and allow them to refine the metavariable, i.e., to replace it with more detailed code. This feature allows incremental program construction in a way similar to tactics-based proof assistants such as
=== Proof automation ===
Programming in pure type theory involves a lot of tedious and repetitive proofs. Although Agda has no separate tactics language, it is possible to program useful tactics within Agda. Typically, this works by writing an Agda function that optionally returns a proof of some property of interest. A tactic is then constructed by running this function at type-checking time, for example using the following auxiliary definitions:
<syntaxhighlight lang="agda">
</syntaxhighlight>
Line 91 ⟶ 90:
<syntaxhighlight lang="agda">
</syntaxhighlight>
|