The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A framework for defining logics
Open accessAbstract
The Edinburgh Logical Framework (LF) provides a means to define (or present) logics. It is based on a general treatment of syntax, rules, and proofs by means of a typed λ-calculus with dependent types. Syntax is treated in a style similar to, but more general than, Martin-Lo¨f's system of arities. The treatment of rules and proofs focuses on his notion of a judgment . Logics are represented in LF via a new principle, the judgments as types principle, whereby each judgment is identified with the type of its proofs. This allows for a smooth treatment of discharge and variable occurence conditions and leads to a uniform treatment of rules and proofs whereby rules are viewed as proofs of higher-order judgments and proof checking is reduced to type checking. The practical benefit of our treatment of formal systems is that logic-independent tools, such as proof editors and proof checkers, can be constructed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1205
(1999) · Industrial Robot: An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ir.1999.04926fae.001 · Cited by 38,662
A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle
Robinson, J. A. (1965) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/321250.321253 · Cited by 3,909
Milner, R., Harper, R., MacQueen, D., & Tofte, M. (1997) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2319.001.0001 · Cited by 2,419
Self-citationShoenfield, J. R. (1967) · Cited by 2,108
Clocksin, W. F., & Mellish, C. (1984) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55481-0 · Cited by 2,047
A formulation of the simple theory of types
Church, A. (1940) · Journal of Symbolic Logic · doi:10.2307/2266170 · Cited by 1,903
Call-by-name, call-by-value and the λ-calculus
Plotkin, G. D. (1975) · Theoretical Computer Science · doi:10.1016/0304-3975(75)90017-1 · Cited by 1,154
Self-citation(1965) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,141
Coquand, T., & Huet, G. (1988) · Information and Computation · doi:10.1016/0890-5401(88)90005-3 · Cited by 1,082
Implementing Mathematics with The Nuprl Proof Development System
Constable, R. L., Allen, S. F., Bromley, H. M., Cleaveland, W. R., Cremer, J. F., Harper, R. W., Howe, D. J., Knoblock, T. B., Mendler, N. P., Panangaden, P., et al. (1986) · Cited by 985
Self-citation
Cited by
Necula, G. C. (1997) · Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '97 · doi:10.1145/263699.263712 · Cited by 1,843
A Logic Programming Language with Lambda-Abstraction, Function Variables, and Simple Unification
MILLER, D. (1991) · Journal of Logic and Computation · doi:10.1093/logcom/1.4.497 · Cited by 382
Foundational proof-carrying code
Appel, A. W. (2002) · Proceedings 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science · doi:10.1109/lics.2001.932501 · Cited by 308
Rewriting Logic as a Logical and Semantic Framework
Martí-Oliet, N., & Meseguer, J. (2002) · Handbook of Philosophical Logic · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0464-9_1 · Cited by 253
History of Interactive Theorem Proving
Harrison, J., Urban, J., & Wiedijk, F. (2014) · Handbook of the History of Logic · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-51624-4.50004-6 · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Harper, R., Honsell, F., & Plotkin, G.
- Venue
- Journal of the ACM
- Published
- 1993-01-02
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 143-184
- ISSN
- 0004-5411
- 1557-735X
- OpenAlex
- W1974190112
- Cited by
- 990
- References
- 20
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A framework for defining logics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/138027.138060
- The paper
- Harper, R., Honsell, F., & Plotkin, G. (1993). A framework for defining logics. Journal of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/138027.138060
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
