Results 1  10
of
66
Rewriting Logic as a Logical and Semantic Framework
, 1993
"... Rewriting logic [72] is proposed as a logical framework in which other logics can be represented, and as a semantic framework for the specification of languages and systems. Using concepts from the theory of general logics [70], representations of an object logic L in a framework logic F are und ..."
Abstract

Cited by 147 (52 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Rewriting logic [72] is proposed as a logical framework in which other logics can be represented, and as a semantic framework for the specification of languages and systems. Using concepts from the theory of general logics [70], representations of an object logic L in a framework logic F are understood as mappings L ! F that translate one logic into the other in a conservative way. The ease with which such maps can be defined for a number of quite different logics of interest, including equational logic, Horn logic with equality, linear logic, logics with quantifiers, and any sequent calculus presentation of a logic for a very general notion of "sequent," is discussed in detail. Using the fact that rewriting logic is reflective, it is often possible to reify inside rewriting logic itself a representation map L ! RWLogic for the finitely presentable theories of L. Such a reification takes the form of a map between the abstract data types representing the finitary theories of...
Theorem Proving Modulo
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
"... Abstract. Deduction modulo is a way to remove computational arguments from proofs by reasoning modulo a congruence on propositions. Such a technique, issued from automated theorem proving, is of much wider interest because it permits to separate computations and deductions in a clean way. The first ..."
Abstract

Cited by 78 (14 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Deduction modulo is a way to remove computational arguments from proofs by reasoning modulo a congruence on propositions. Such a technique, issued from automated theorem proving, is of much wider interest because it permits to separate computations and deductions in a clean way. The first contribution of this paper is to define a sequent calculus modulo that gives a proof theoretic account of the combination of computations and deductions. The congruence on propositions is handled via rewrite rules and equational axioms. Rewrite rules apply to terms and also directly to atomic propositions. The second contribution is to give a complete proof search method, called Extended Narrowing and Resolution (ENAR), for theorem proving modulo such congruences. The completeness of this method is proved with respect to provability in sequent calculus modulo. An important application is that higherorder logic can be presented as a theory modulo. Applying the Extended Narrowing and Resolution method to this presentation of higherorder logic subsumes full higherorder resolution.
Theorem Proving with Ordering and Equality Constrained Clauses
 Journal of Symbolic Computation
, 1995
"... constraint strategies and saturation Given a signature F , below we denote by S the set of all clauses built over F , and similarly by C the set of all constraints, and by EC the set of all equality constraints (which is a subset of C). Definition 3.1. An inference rule IR is a mapping of ntuples ..."
Abstract

Cited by 73 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
constraint strategies and saturation Given a signature F , below we denote by S the set of all clauses built over F , and similarly by C the set of all constraints, and by EC the set of all equality constraints (which is a subset of C). Definition 3.1. An inference rule IR is a mapping of ntuples of clauses to sets of triples containing a clause, a constraint and an equality constraint: IR : S n \Gamma! P(hS; C; ECi) An inference system is a set of inference rules. Definition 3.2. A constraint inheritance strategy is a function mapping a clause, two constraints and an equality constraint to a clause and a constraint: H : S \Theta C \Theta C \Theta EC \Gamma! S \Theta C Inference systems and constraint inheritance strategies are combined to produce inferences in the usual sense: given constrained clauses C 1 [[T 1 ]]; : : : ; Cn [[T n ]], we obtain a conclusion C [[T ]] as follows. Applying an inference rule to C 1 ; : : : ; Cn we obtain a triple hD; OT;ET i. Then the constraint...
Basic Paramodulation
 Information and Computation
, 1995
"... We introduce a class of restrictions for the ordered paramodulation and superposition calculi (inspired by the basic strategy for narrowing), in which paramodulation inferences are forbidden at terms introduced by substitutions from previous inference steps. In addition we introduce restrictions bas ..."
Abstract

Cited by 67 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a class of restrictions for the ordered paramodulation and superposition calculi (inspired by the basic strategy for narrowing), in which paramodulation inferences are forbidden at terms introduced by substitutions from previous inference steps. In addition we introduce restrictions based on term selection rules and redex orderings, which are general criteria for delimiting the terms which are available for inferences. These refinements are compatible with standard ordering restrictions and are complete without paramodulation into variables or using functional reflexivity axioms. We prove refutational completeness in the context of deletion rules, such as simplification by rewriting (demodulation) and subsumption, and of techniques for eliminating redundant inferences.
Completion of Rewrite Systems with Membership Constraints Part II: Constraint Solving
 J. Symbolic Computation
, 1992
"... this paper is to show how to solve the constraints that are involved in the deduction mechanism of the first part. This may be interesting in its own since this provides with a unification algorithm for an ordersorted logic with context variables and can be read independently of the first part. Thi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 66 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper is to show how to solve the constraints that are involved in the deduction mechanism of the first part. This may be interesting in its own since this provides with a unification algorithm for an ordersorted logic with context variables and can be read independently of the first part. This can also be compared with unification of term schemes of various kind (Chen & Hsiang, 1991; Salzer, 1992; Comon, 1995; R. Galbav'y and M. Hermann, 1992). Indeed,
Unions of NonDisjoint Theories and Combinations of Satisfiability Procedures
 THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE
, 2001
"... In this paper we outline a theoretical framework for the combination of decision procedures for constraint satisfiability. We describe a general combination method which, given a procedure that decides constraint satisfiability with respect to a constraint theory T1 and one that decides constraint s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we outline a theoretical framework for the combination of decision procedures for constraint satisfiability. We describe a general combination method which, given a procedure that decides constraint satisfiability with respect to a constraint theory T1 and one that decides constraint satisfiability with respect to a constraint theory T2, produces a procedure that (semi)decides constraint satisfiability with respect to the union of T1 and T2. We provide a number of modeltheoretic conditions on the constraint language and the component constraint theories for the method to be sound and complete, with special emphasis on the case in which the signatures of the component theories are nondisjoint. We also describe some general classes of theories to which our combination results apply, and relate our approach to some of the existing combination methods in the field.
ACsuperposition with constraints: No ACunifiers needed
 Proceedings 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction
, 1990
"... We prove the completeness of (basic) deduction strategies with constrained clauses modulo associativity and commutativity (AC). Here each inference generates one single conclusion with an additional equality s = AC t in its constraint (instead of one conclusion for each minimal ACunifier, i.e. expo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove the completeness of (basic) deduction strategies with constrained clauses modulo associativity and commutativity (AC). Here each inference generates one single conclusion with an additional equality s = AC t in its constraint (instead of one conclusion for each minimal ACunifier, i.e. exponentially many). Furthermore, computing ACunifiers is not needed at all. A clause C [[ T ]] is redundant if the constraint T is not ACunifiable. If C is the empty clause this has to be decided to know whether C [[ T ]] denotes an inconsistency. In all other cases any sound method to detect unsatisfiable constraints can be used. 1 Introduction Some fundamental ideas on applying symbolic constraints to theorem proving were given in [KKR90], where a constrained clause is a shorthand for its (infinite) set of ground instances satisfying the constraint. In a constrained equation f(x) ' a [[ x = g(y) ]], the equality `=' of the constraint is usually interpreted in T (F) (syntactic equality), ...
Combining Symbolic Constraint Solvers on Algebraic Domains
 Journal of Symbolic Computation
, 1994
"... ion An atomic constraint p ? (t 1 ; : : : ; t m ) is decomposed into a conjunction of pure atomic constraints by introducing new equations of the form (x = ? t), where t is an alien subterm in the constraint and x is a variable that does not appear in p ? (t 1 ; : : : ; t m ). This is formalized tha ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ion An atomic constraint p ? (t 1 ; : : : ; t m ) is decomposed into a conjunction of pure atomic constraints by introducing new equations of the form (x = ? t), where t is an alien subterm in the constraint and x is a variable that does not appear in p ? (t 1 ; : : : ; t m ). This is formalized thanks to the notion of abstraction. Definition 4.2. Let T be a set of terms such that 8t 2 T ; 8u 2 X [ SC; t 6= E1[E2 u: A variable abstraction of the set of terms T is a surjective mapping \Pi from T to a set of variables included in X such that 8s; t 2 T ; \Pi(s) = \Pi(t) if and only if s =E1[E2 t: \Pi \Gamma1 denotes any substitution (with possibly infinite domain) such that \Pi(\Pi \Gamma1 (x)) = x for any variable x in the range of \Pi. It is important to note that building a variable abstraction relies on the decidability of E 1 [ E 2 equality in order to abstract equal alien subterms by the same variable. Let T = fu #R j u 2 T (F [ X ) and u #R2 T (F [ X )n(X [ SC)g...