Results 1  10
of
35
Automating the Meta Theory of Deductive Systems
, 2000
"... not be interpreted as representing the o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of NSF or the U.S. Government. This thesis describes the design of a metalogical framework that supports the representation and veri cation of deductive systems, its implementation as an automated theorem prover, a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 81 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
not be interpreted as representing the o cial policies, either expressed or implied, of NSF or the U.S. Government. This thesis describes the design of a metalogical framework that supports the representation and veri cation of deductive systems, its implementation as an automated theorem prover, and experimental results related to the areas of programming languages, type theory, and logics. Design: The metalogical framework extends the logical framework LF [HHP93] by a metalogic M + 2. This design is novel and unique since it allows higherorder encodings of deductive systems and induction principles to coexist. On the one hand, higherorder representation techniques lead to concise and direct encodings of programming languages and logic calculi. Inductive de nitions on the other hand allow the formalization of properties about deductive systems, such as the proof that an operational semantics preserves types or the proof that a logic is is a proof calculus whose proof terms are recursive functions that may be consistent.M +
MBase: Representing Knowledge and Context for the Integration of Mathematical Software Systems
, 2000
"... In this article we describe the data model of the MBase system, a webbased, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this article we describe the data model of the MBase system, a webbased,
Integrating Automated and Interactive Theorem Proving
, 1998
"... Machine code ((Schellhorn and Ahrendt, 1997) and Chapter III.2.6). We use it as a reference or benchmark. Parts of it are repeated every now and then to evaluate the success of our integration concepts, see Section 7. In realistic applications in software verification, proof attempts are more likel ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Machine code ((Schellhorn and Ahrendt, 1997) and Chapter III.2.6). We use it as a reference or benchmark. Parts of it are repeated every now and then to evaluate the success of our integration concepts, see Section 7. In realistic applications in software verification, proof attempts are more likely to fail than to go through. This is because specifications, programs, I_3_16mod_a.tex; 9/03/1998; 13:09; p.2 INTEGRATED THEOREM PROVING 549 or userdefined lemmas typically are erroneous. Correct versions usually are only obtained after a number of corrections and failed proof attempts. Therefore, the question is not only how to produce powerful theorem provers but also how to integrate proving and error correction. Current research on this and related topics is discussed in Section 8. There are different approaches of combining interactive methods with automated ones. Their relation to our approach is the subject of Section 9. Finally, in Section 10 we draw conclusions. 2. IDENTIFYING ...
Colouring Terms to Control Equational Reasoning
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1997
"... . In this paper we present an approach to prove the equality between terms in a goaldirected way developed in the field of inductive theorem proving. The two terms to be equated are syntactically split into expressions which are common to both and those which occur only in one term. According to the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. In this paper we present an approach to prove the equality between terms in a goaldirected way developed in the field of inductive theorem proving. The two terms to be equated are syntactically split into expressions which are common to both and those which occur only in one term. According to the computed differences we apply appropriate equations to the terms in order to reduce the differences in a goaldirected way. Although this approach was developed for purposes of inductive theorem proving  we use this technique to manipulate the conclusion of an induction step to enable the use of the hypothesis  it is a powerful method for the control of equational reasoning in general. 1. Introduction The automation of equational reasoning is one of the most important obstacles in the field of automating deductions. Even small equational problems result in a huge search space, and finding a proof often fails due to the combinatorial explosion. Proving (conditional) equations by inductio...
System Description: inka 5.0  A Logic Voyager
, 1999
"... this paper are implemented and used for some example logics and sequent calculus proof search. The core inka is implemented in Allegro Common Lisp. The interface runs on distributed Oz, which is available for Unix and Windows. As a next step we intend to integrate a logic for algorithmic function an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper are implemented and used for some example logics and sequent calculus proof search. The core inka is implemented in Allegro Common Lisp. The interface runs on distributed Oz, which is available for Unix and Windows. As a next step we intend to integrate a logic for algorithmic function and predicate definitions as well as the methods to prove their termination as tactics. Termination proofs can be inspected and already proven lemmata can be used during the construction of termination proofs, which are the main advantages wrt. the black box implementation of these methods in the old inka system [8]. References
System Description: MBase, an Open Mathematical Knowledge Base
 CADE17, LNAI 1831
, 2000
"... In this paper we describe the MBase system, a webbased, distributed mathematical knowledge base. This system is a mathematical service in MathWeb that offers ... ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we describe the MBase system, a webbased, distributed mathematical knowledge base. This system is a mathematical service in MathWeb that offers ...
AgentOriented Integration of Distributed Mathematical Services
 Journal of Universal Computer Science
, 1999
"... Realworld applications of automated theorem proving require modern software environments that enable modularisation, networked interoperability, robustness, and scalability. These requirements are met by the AgentOriented Programming paradigm of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. We argue that ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Realworld applications of automated theorem proving require modern software environments that enable modularisation, networked interoperability, robustness, and scalability. These requirements are met by the AgentOriented Programming paradigm of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. We argue that a reasonable framework for automated theorem proving in the large regards typical mathematical services as autonomous agents that provide internal functionality to the outside and that, in turn, are able to access a variety of existing external services. This article describes...
A Generic Modular Data Structure for Proof Attempts Alternating on Ideas and Granularity
 Proceedings of MKM’05, volume 3863 of LNAI, IUB
, 2006
"... Abstract. A practically useful mathematical assistant system requires the sophisticated combination of interaction and automation. Central in such a system is the proof data structure, which has to maintain the current proof state and which has to allow the flexible interplay of various components i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. A practically useful mathematical assistant system requires the sophisticated combination of interaction and automation. Central in such a system is the proof data structure, which has to maintain the current proof state and which has to allow the flexible interplay of various components including the human user. We describe a parameterized proof data structure for the management of proofs, which includes our experience with the development of two proof assistants. It supports and bridges the gap between abstract level proof explanation and lowlevel proof verification. The proof data structure enables, in particular, the flexible handling of lemmas, the maintenance of different proof alternatives, and the representation of different granularities of proof attempts. 1
A Proof Planning Framework for Isabelle
, 2005
"... Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully formal proofs. This thesis concerns the development and analysis of a novel approach to proof planning that focuses on an explicit representation of choices during search. We embody our approach as a proof planner for the generic proof assistant Isabelle and use the Isar language, which is humanreadable and machinecheckable, to represent proof plans. Within this framework we develop an inductive theorem prover as a case study of our approach to proof planning. Our prover uses the difference reduction heuristic known as rippling to automate the step cases of the inductive proofs. The development of a flexible approach to rippling that supports its various modifications and extensions is the second major focus of this thesis. Here, our inductive theorem prover provides a context in which to evaluate rippling experimentally. This work results in an efficient and powerful inductive theorem prover for Isabelle as well as proposals for further improving the efficiency of rippling. We also draw observations in order