Favio Ezequiel Miranda-Perea

We present a proof of the equivalence between two deductive systems for constructive necessity, namely an axiomatic characterisation inspired by Hakli and Negri's system of derivations from assumptions for modal logic , a Hilbert-style formalism designed to ensure the validity of the deduction theorem, and the judgmental reconstruction given by Pfenning and Davies by means of a natural deduction approach that makes a distinction between valid and true formulae, constructively. Both systems and the proof of their equivalence are formally verified using the state-of-the-art proof assistant Coq. The proof approach taken throughout the paper unveils the use of some alternative proof methods that allow for a smooth transition from the high-level mathematical proofs to their mechanised counterparts.

Equational reasoning arises in many areas of mathematics and computer science. It is a cornerstone of algebraic reasoning and results essential in tasks of specification and verification in functional programming, where a program is mainly a set of equations. The usual manipulation of identities while conducting informal proofs obviates many intermediate steps that are neccesary while developing them using a formal system, such as the equationally complete Birkhoff calculus ${\mathcal{B}}$. This deductive system does not fit in the common manner of doing mathematical proofs, and it is not compatible with the mechanisms of proof assistants. The aim of this work is to provide a deductive system ${\mathcal{B}}^{\textrm{GOAL}}$ for equality, equivalent to ${\mathcal{B}}$ but suitable for constructing equational proofs in a backward fashion. This feature makes it adequate for interactive proof-search in the approach of proof assistants. This will be achieved by turning ${\mathcal{B}}^{\textrm{GOAL}}$ into a transition system of formal tactics in the style of Edinburgh LCF, such transformation allows us to give a direct formal definition of backward proof in equational logic.