`perga` is a basic proof assistant based on a dependently typed lambda calculus (calculus of constructions). This implementation is based on the exposition in Nederpelt and Geuvers’*Type Theory and Formal Proof*. Right now it is a perfectly capable higher order logic proof checker, though there is lots of room for improved ergonomics and usability, which I intend to work on. At the moment, `perga` is comparable to Automath in terms of power and ease of use, being slightly more powerful than Automath (though lacks a *primitive notion* system for the moment), and a touch less ergonomic.
The syntax is fairly flexible and should work as you expect. Identifiers can be Unicode as long as `megaparsec` calls them alphanumeric. `λ` and `Π` abstractions can be written in many obvious ways that should be clear from the examples below. Additionally, arrows can be used as an abbreviation for a Π type where the parameter doesn’t appear in the body as usual.
I mostly stick to Coq syntax throughout this file and the examples, as that is what I’m most used to and is easiest to type. I will probably make the syntax more strict in the future, as this level of flexibility is really not necessary.
(The distinction between `<type>` and `<term>` is for emphasis; they are the exact same syntactic category.) Here’s a couple definitions of the `const` function from above showing the options with the syntax.
Type ascriptions are optional. If included, `perga` will check to make sure your definition matches the ascription, and, if so, will remember the way your wrote the type when printing inferred types, which is particularly handy when using abbreviations for complex types. `perga` has no problem inferring the types of top-level definitions, as they are completely determined by the term, but I recommend including ascriptions most of the time, as they serve as a nice piece of documentation, help guide the implementation process, and make sure you are implementing the type you think you are.
Line comments are `--` like in Haskell, and block comments are `(* *)` like ML (and nest properly). There is no significant whitespace, so you are free to format code as you wish.
Running `perga` without any arguments drops you into a basic repl. From here, you can type in definitions which `perga` will typecheck. Previous definitions are accessible in future definitions. The usual readline keybindings are available, including navigating history, which is saved between sessions (in `~/.cache/perga/history`). In the repl, you can enter “:q”, press C-c, or press C-d to quit. Entering “:e” shows everything that has been defined along with their types. Entering “:t <ident>” prints the type of a particular identifier. Entering “:n <expr>” will fully normalize (including unfolding definitions) an expression.
You can also give `perga` a filename as an argument, in which case it will typecheck every definition in the file. Upon finishing, which should be nearly instantaneous, it will print out all the definitions it parsed along with their types (like you had typed “:e” in the repl) so you can verify that it worked.
A much larger, commented example is located in <./examples/example.pg>. Here is an example file defining Leibniz equality and proving that it is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.
I vaguely remember from reading Coq’art that Coq does something special with `let` expressions, so I’ll maybe want to check that out. I tried implementing `let` as syntax sugar for an immediately called function, but that proved to be a massive mess with how I’m handling things. `let` expressions would definitely be handy for factoring out complex sub expressions.
Obviously not fully decidable, but I might be able to implement some basic unification algorithm. This isn’t super necessary though, I find leaving off the types of arguments to generally be a bad idea, but in some cases it can be handy, especially not at the top level.
Much, much more useful than [inference](#org6d7253e), implicit arguments would be amazing. It also seems a lot more complicated, but any system for dealing with implicit arguments is far better than none. Getting rid of stuff like [lines 213-215 of the example file](./examples/example.pg) would be amazing.
A proper module system would be wonderful. To me, ML style modules with structures, signatures, and functors seems like the right way to handle algebraic structures for a relatively simple language, rather than records (or a bunch of `and`’s like I currently have) or type classes (probably much harder, but could be nicer), but any way of managing scope, importing files, etc. is a necessity.
This is definitely a stretch goal. It would be cool though, and would turn this proof checker into a much more competent programming language. It’s not necessary for the math, but inductive definitions let you leverage computation in proofs, which is amazing. They also make certain definitions way easier, by avoiding needing to manually stipulate elimination rules, including induction principles, and let you keep more math constructive and understandable to the computer.
Right now, everything defaults to one line, which can be a problem with how large the proof terms get. Probably want to use [prettyprinter](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/prettyprinter) to be able to nicely handle indentation and line breaks.
### TODO Smarter normalization/beta-equivalence checking
I had what I thought was a smarter way to check for β-equivalence than just fully normalizing both terms and checking if they are the same, but it turned out to be a little wrong, which isn’t too surprising since I just made it up. It’s probably salvageable, but I’d also like to look into other forms of normalization and checking for β-equivalence.
The repl is decent, but implementing something like [this](https://abhinavsarkar.net/posts/repling-with-haskeline/) would be awesome. I’d also at least like to add a new command `":l <filename>"` to load the definitions from a file.
Error messages are decent, but a little buggy. Syntax error messages are pretty ok, but could have better labeling. The type check error messages are decent, but could do with better location information. Right now, the location defaults to the end of the current definition, which is often good enough, but more detail can’t hurt.
### TODO Better testing
I would like to avoid regressions as I keep working on this, and a suite of unit tests would make me feel much more comfortable. I made unit tests, then added a ton of stuff. Most of the unit tests are kind of pointless now. For now, I think running the code on the example file is pretty sufficient.
I’ve had a bunch of ideas for a more mathematician-friendly syntax bouncing around my head for a while. Implementing one of them would be awesome, but probably quite tricky.
Really not necessary, especially while the syntax is in a bit of flux, but would eventually be nice. The syntax is simple enough that a treesitter grammar shouldn’t be too hard to write. An emacs mode would especially be nice if I ever get end up implementing an [alternate syntax](#orgf8270fd), to better handle indentation, automatically adjust line numbers, etc.
This is definitely a stretch goal, and I’m not sure how good of an idea it would be, but I’m imagining a TUI split into two panels. On the left you can see the term you are building with holes in it. On the right you have the focused hole’s type as well as the types of everything in scope (like Coq and Lean show while you’re in the middle of a proof). Then you can interact with the system by entering commands (e.g. `intros`, `apply`, etc.) which changes the proof term on the left. You’d also just be able to type in the left window as well, and edit the proof term directly. This way you’d get the benefits of working with tactics, making it way faster to construct proof terms, and the benefits of working with proof terms directly, namely transparency and simplicity. I’ll probably want to look into [brick](https://hackage.haskell.org/package/brick) if I want to make this happen.
