Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2606.19761

Finishing Oltean's Completeness Proof in Lean 4 for Hybrid Logic $L(\forall)$

Abstract

We present a machine-checked completeness theorem, in Lean 4, for the hybrid logic $L(\forall)$: propositional modal logic with nominals, the satisfaction-style binder $\forall$, and the box modality. (Machine-checked completeness for basic hybrid logic, without binders, was pioneered by Asta Halkjær From in Isabelle/HOL.) We build on Alex Oltean's 2023 Lean 4 formalization, which mechanized the syntax, semantics, Hilbert-style proof system, and soundness following Blackburn's Hybrid Completeness (1998), but left completeness unfinished. Finishing it requires manufacturing fresh names at two structurally different points, and our central finding is that they call for two different tools. (1) The root witnessed maximal consistent set, built by an extended Lindenbaum construction, needs at each step a nominal fresh for the whole set; the right tool is structural freshness: extend the language so an infinite supply of nominals is reserved by construction. We survey the design space (Oltean's odd/even encoding inside $\mathbb{N}$, the disjoint-sum $N \oplus \mathbb{N}$ parameterization suggested by Bud Mishra, and From's synthetic-completeness frameworks) and explain the encoding we adopt. (2) The witnessed $\Diamond$-successor of a maximal consistent set cannot be obtained this way: its canonical box-reduct provably mentions every nominal, so no reserved name is fresh. Here the right tool is one Oltean chose but left incomplete: an existence-lemma Henkin construction drawing each witness from the predecessor's witnessedness through a fresh state variable; we complete it with a data-carrying witness accumulator and a compactness argument. The theorem $Γ\models φ\to Γ\vdash φ$ is fully formalized: the development is sorry-free, and #print axioms reports only propext, Classical.choice, and Quot.sound. We port the development to Lean v4.30.0 / mathlib v4.30.0.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lars Warren Ericson. 2026-06-18. Finishing Oltean's Completeness Proof in Lean 4 for Hybrid Logic $L(\forall)$. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19761

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Deciding Predicate Logical Theories of Real-Valued Functions

The notion of a real-valued function is central to mathematics, computer science, and many other scientific fields. Despite this importance, there are hardly any positive results on decision procedures for predicate logical theories that reason about real-valued functions. This paper defines a first-order predicate language for reasoning about multi-dimensional smooth real-valued functions and their derivatives, and demonstrates that - despite the obvious undecidability barriers - certain positive decidability results for such a language are indeed possible.

cs.LO

Structural Liveness of Conservative Petri Nets

We show that the EXPSPACE-hardness result for structural liveness of Petri nets [Jancar and Purser, 2019] holds even for a simple subclass of conservative nets. As our main result, we prove that for structurally live conservative nets, the values of the minimal live markings are at most doubly exponential in the size of the net. This implies the EXPSPACE-completeness of structural liveness for conservative Petri nets. The result also applies to structurally bounded Petri nets, whereas the complexity of the general case remains open. As a proof ingredient of independent interest, we present an extension of known results on the bounds of minimal integer solutions to Boolean combinations of linear equalities, inequalities, and divisibility constraints.

cs.LO

Verifying Numerical Methods with Isabelle/HOL

Modern machine learning pipelines and ODE solvers are built on numerical algorithms. Reliable numerical methods are thus a prerequisite for trustworthy machine learning and cyber-physical systems. We evaluate a framework designed for verifying imperative programs and the Isabelle proof assistant as tools for proving the total correctness of four numerical algorithms: the bisection method, the fixed-point method, the perceptron, and the gradient descent algorithm. Our verifications required subtle extensions and generalisations to Isabelle's version of Taylor's theorem and higher-order derivatives. Finally, we reflect on the framework's automation, friendly syntax, and on further requirements to turn it into a verification tool for numerical methods.

cs.LO