[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
article
Free access

Subproblem finder and instance checker, two cooperating modules for theorem provers

Published: 10 August 1986 Publication History

Abstract

Properties are proved about INSTANCE, a theorem prover module that recognizes that a formula is a special case and/or an alphabetic variant of another formula, and about INSURER, another theorem prover module that decomposes a problem, represented by a formula, into independent subproblems, using a conjunction. The main result of INSTANCE is soundness; the main result of INSURER is a maximum decomposition into subproblems (with some provisos). Experimental results show that a connection graph theorem prover extended with these modules is more effective than the resolution-based connection graph theorem prover alone.

References

[1]
DE CHAMPEAUX, D. A theorem prover dating a semantic network. In Proceedings of AISB/GI Conference (Hamburg, West Germany). Univ. of Hamburg, Hamburg, 1978, pp. 82-92.
[2]
DE CHAMPEAUX, D. Sub-problem finder and instance checker, two cooperating preprocessors for theorem provers. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Tokyo). 1979, pp. 19 l- 196.
[3]
CHANG, C -L., AND LEE, R.C. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla., 1973.
[4]
ENDERTON, H.B. A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla., 1972.
[5]
ERNST, G.W. The utility of independent subgoals in theorem proving. Inf. Control 18 (1971), 237-252.
[6]
GELERNTER, n. Realization of a geometry theorem proving machine. In Proceedings of an International Conference on Information Processing (Paris), UNESCO House, 1959, pp. 273-282. Reprinted in Computers and Thought, E. A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman, Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pp. 134-152.
[7]
GREEN, C. The application of theorem-proving to question-answering systems. Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project Memo AI-96, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif., June 1969.
[8]
HENSCHEN, L., ET AL. Challenge problem I. SIGART Newsl. 72 (July 1980), 30-3 I.
[9]
KLING, R.E. A paradigm for reasoning by analogy. Artif. Intell. 2 (1971), 147-178.
[10]
LOVELAND, D.W. Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis. North-Holland, The Netherlands, 1978.
[11]
MANNA, Z. Introduction to Mathematical Theory of Computation. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.
[12]
ROaINSON, j.A. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J.,4CM 12, l, (Jan. 1965), 23-41.
[13]
SACERDOTI, E.D. Planning in a Hierarchy of Abstraction Spaces. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Stanford). 1973, pp. 412-422.
[14]
WANG, H. Toward mechanical mathematics. IBM J (Jan 1960), 2-22.

Cited By

View all
  • (2003)Consistent document engineeringProceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Document engineering10.1145/958220.958246(140-149)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2003
  • (1992)An extension of the Boyer-Moore theorem prover to support first-order quantificationJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/BF002452959:3(355-372)Online publication date: 1-Dec-1992
  • (1989)Maintaining state constraints in relational databases: a proof theoretic basisJournal of the ACM10.1145/58562.5930236:1(46-68)Online publication date: 1-Jan-1989
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Subproblem finder and instance checker, two cooperating modules for theorem provers

      Recommendations

      Reviews

      Alan Aage Adamson

      The loss of faith in the grand scheme for problem solving has lately been matched by a loss of faith in any grand scheme for theorem proving. (This should come as no surprise—the tasks differ only slightly.) The limitations of brute force and very simple heuristics are now clear enough that other approaches to producing practically useful theorem provers have been appearing for some time now. De Champeaux's paper presents an approach one might describe as “distributed,” and he goes so far as to suggest some of the pieces out of which a reasonable theorem prover might be built. De Champeaux argues that theorem proving will be done best by a committee of “cooperating deductive specialists,” each being called upon at the appropriate moment, insofar as that can be determined. The specialties in question might be things like finding a new point of view or finding a generalization of the problem to be solved. Other members of the committee will surely be the traditional diggers, for example, an expert on resolution and perhaps one on natural deduction. The main discussion in the paper concerns two candidates for jobs on the team, one called INSTANCE and one called INSURER. The former has the task of determining whether a formula being inspected is a special case of another, in particular of something already accepted as known. The latter decomposes proof tasks into collections of presumably simpler such tasks. These two specialists are discussed in detail, and examples of how they can work together are given. Experiments comparing their joint work favorably with that of simpler approaches are supplied. It is really too early in the development of this subject to know what tools will be considered useful in the future. The direction outlined in this paper is encouraging and deserves exploration. The paper concludes with a short discussion of who else might serve on the envisioned committee, and I hope future papers will report on happy experiences with welcoming these newcomers aboard.

      Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

      Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

      Comments

      Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image Journal of the ACM
      Journal of the ACM  Volume 33, Issue 4
      Oct. 1986
      189 pages
      ISSN:0004-5411
      EISSN:1557-735X
      DOI:10.1145/6490
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 10 August 1986
      Published in JACM Volume 33, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)63
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
      Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2003)Consistent document engineeringProceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Document engineering10.1145/958220.958246(140-149)Online publication date: 20-Nov-2003
      • (1992)An extension of the Boyer-Moore theorem prover to support first-order quantificationJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/BF002452959:3(355-372)Online publication date: 1-Dec-1992
      • (1989)Maintaining state constraints in relational databases: a proof theoretic basisJournal of the ACM10.1145/58562.5930236:1(46-68)Online publication date: 1-Jan-1989
      • (1988)Un-skolemizing clause setsInformation Processing Letters10.1016/0020-0190(88)90119-629:5(257-263)Online publication date: 24-Nov-1988
      • (1988)An implementation of a dissolution-based system employing theory links9th International Conference on Automated Deduction10.1007/BFb0012864(658-674)Online publication date: 1988
      • (1987)Inference with path resolution and semantic graphsJournal of the ACM10.1145/23005.2371634:2(225-254)Online publication date: 1-Apr-1987

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Login options

      Full Access

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media