Results 1 
8 of
8
Set theory for verification: I. From foundations to functions
 J. Auto. Reas
, 1993
"... A logic for specification and verification is derived from the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel set theory. The proofs are performed using the proof assistant Isabelle. Isabelle is generic, supporting several different logics. Isabelle has the flexibility to adapt to variants of set theory. Its higherord ..."
Abstract

Cited by 46 (18 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A logic for specification and verification is derived from the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel set theory. The proofs are performed using the proof assistant Isabelle. Isabelle is generic, supporting several different logics. Isabelle has the flexibility to adapt to variants of set theory. Its higherorder syntax supports the definition of new binding operators. Unknowns in subgoals can be instantiated incrementally. The paper describes the derivation of rules for descriptions, relations and functions, and discusses interactive proofs of Cantor’s Theorem, the Composition of Homomorphisms challenge [9], and Ramsey’s Theorem [5]. A generic proof assistant can stand up against provers dedicated to particular logics. Key words. Isabelle, set theory, generic theorem proving, Ramsey’s Theorem,
Selectively instantiating definitions
 In Proc. of CADE15, volume 1421 of LNAI
, 1998
"... 1 Introduction When searching for proofs of theorems which contain definitions, it is a significant problem to decide which instances of the definitions to instantiate. Often, one needs to instantiate some, but not all, of them, and if one does instantiate all of them, one can cause the search space ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
1 Introduction When searching for proofs of theorems which contain definitions, it is a significant problem to decide which instances of the definitions to instantiate. Often, one needs to instantiate some, but not all, of them, and if one does instantiate all of them, one can cause the search space to expand in a very undesirable way. This problem has been noted in [4] and [23], and treatments of it may be found in [6], [8] and [12]. We have found a partial solution to this problem; it involves making each instance of a definition accessible to the search procedure in both its instantiated and its uninstantiated form, and letting the search procedure decide which to use, with a bias in favor of the uninstantiated form. This is very effective in some cases.
Proofs and Pictures Proving the Diamond Lemma with the grover Theorem Proving System
, 1995
"... In this paper we describe a theorem proving system called grover. grover is novel in that it may be guided in its search for a proof by information contained in a diagram. There are two parts to the system: the underlying theorem prover, called &, and the graphical subsystem which examines the diagr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we describe a theorem proving system called grover. grover is novel in that it may be guided in its search for a proof by information contained in a diagram. There are two parts to the system: the underlying theorem prover, called &, and the graphical subsystem which examines the diagram and makes calls to the underlying prover on the basis of the information found there. We have used grover to prove the Diamond Lemma, a nontrivial theorem from the theory of wellfounded relations. Key words. Automated reasoning, graphical theorem proving, proof strategies. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under award number ISI8701133. 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1 Introduction Open almost any mathematics text book and you will find, along with the familiar symbolism of mathematics and motivational text, many diagrams which are included to help the reader visualize the particular point being made. One might be tempted to conclude that mathema...
Theorem Proving with Definitions
, 1989
"... This paper analyses a technique (called Gazing) for unfolding de nitions on the basis of a global plan built in an abstract space. Gazing's logical properties are studied inside a formal framework which relies on a more general theory of abstraction. Some experimental results con rming the theoretic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper analyses a technique (called Gazing) for unfolding de nitions on the basis of a global plan built in an abstract space. Gazing's logical properties are studied inside a formal framework which relies on a more general theory of abstraction. Some experimental results con rming the theoretical ones are also presented.
A tableau calculus for quantifierfree set theoretic formulae
 In Proceedings, International Conference on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, Oisterwijk, The Netherlands, LNCS 1397
, 1998
"... Abstract. Set theory is the common language of mathematics. Therefore, set theory plays an important rôle in many important applications of automated deduction. In this paper, we present an improved tableau calculus for the decidable fragment of set theory called multilevel syllogistic with singlet ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Set theory is the common language of mathematics. Therefore, set theory plays an important rôle in many important applications of automated deduction. In this paper, we present an improved tableau calculus for the decidable fragment of set theory called multilevel syllogistic with singleton (MLSS). Furthermore, we describe an extension of our calculus for the bigger fragment consisting of MLSS enriched with free (uninterpreted) function symbols (MLSSF). 1
A Decidable Tableau Calculus for a Fragment of Set Theory With Iterated Membership
 II. Optimization and Complexity Issues. Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1997
"... this paper we give a decision procedure and a decidable tableau calculus for the extension of Multilevel Syllogistic ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we give a decision procedure and a decidable tableau calculus for the extension of Multilevel Syllogistic
CarnegieMellon
, 1980
"... The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the This thesis argues that automatic deduction systems should keep large amounts of knowledge of many domains. This shou ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the This thesis argues that automatic deduction systems should keep large amounts of knowledge of many domains. This should include not only theorems (declarative knowledge) but diverse methods for solving different kinds of problems, programs to do forward reasoning and programs to transform one form of knowledge into another (all of which are forms of procedural knowledge). A program which does these things is presented. Major amounts of effort have gone into transforming theorems into other theorems which will be more useful, into forward inference programs, and into problem solving programs. The procedural knowledge, in turn, generates more declarative knowledge. A database is presented in which all of this knowledge can be stored so as to facilitate the retrievals that are desired. A goal tree is presented which enables the system to make use of its ability to disprove results, search for examples etc. as well as prove goals. This enables the system to understand, e.g. that proving one goal can cause another goal to be disproved. Also, several methods are
MUSCADET version 4.1 User's Manual
"... 2.2. Power set of the intersection of two sets...................................................................................3 3. From Muscadet1 to Muscadet4........................................................................................................4 ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
2.2. Power set of the intersection of two sets...................................................................................3 3. From Muscadet1 to Muscadet4........................................................................................................4