Results 1  10
of
41
Steps toward artificial intelligence
 Computers and Thought
, 1961
"... Harvard University. The work toward attaining "artificial intelligence’ ’ is the center of considerable computer research, design, and application. The field is in its starting transient, characterized by many varied and independent efforts. Marvin Minsky has been requested to draw this wor ..."
Abstract

Cited by 199 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Harvard University. The work toward attaining &quot;artificial intelligence’ ’ is the center of considerable computer research, design, and application. The field is in its starting transient, characterized by many varied and independent efforts. Marvin Minsky has been requested to draw this work together into a coherent summary, supplement it with appropriate explanatory or theoretical noncomputer information, and introduce his assessment of the state of the art. This paper emphasizes the class of activities in which a generalpurpose computer, complete with a library of basic programs, is further programmed to perform operations leading to ever higherlevel information processing functions such as learning and problem solving. This informative article will be of real interest to both the general Proceedings reader and the computer specialist. The Guest Editor.
The Complexity Of Propositional Proofs
 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
, 1995
"... This paper of Tseitin is a landmark as the first to give nontrivial lower bounds for propositional proofs; although it predates the first papers on ..."
Abstract

Cited by 107 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper of Tseitin is a landmark as the first to give nontrivial lower bounds for propositional proofs; although it predates the first papers on
Nonresolution theorem proving
 Artificial Intelligence
, 1977
"... This talk reviews those efforts in automatic theorem proving, during the past few years, which have emphasized techniques other than resolution. These include: knowledge bases, natural deduction, reduction, (rewrite rules), typing, procedures, advice, controlled forward chaining, algebraic simplific ..."
Abstract

Cited by 60 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This talk reviews those efforts in automatic theorem proving, during the past few years, which have emphasized techniques other than resolution. These include: knowledge bases, natural deduction, reduction, (rewrite rules), typing, procedures, advice, controlled forward chaining, algebraic simplification, builtin associativity and commutativity, models, analogy, and manmachine systems. Examples are given and suggestions are made for future work. 1.
The early history of automated deduction
 Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 1
, 2001
"... ..."
The Philosophy of Automated Theorem Proving
 In Proceedings of the 12. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI91
, 1991
"... Different researchers use "the philosophy of automated theorem proving " to cover different concepts, indeed, different levels of concepts. Some would count such issues as how to efficiently index databases as part of the philosophy of automated theorem proving. Others wonder about whether ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Different researchers use "the philosophy of automated theorem proving " to cover different concepts, indeed, different levels of concepts. Some would count such issues as how to efficiently index databases as part of the philosophy of automated theorem proving. Others wonder about whether formulas should be represented as strings or as trees or as lists, and call this part of the philosophy of automated theorem proving. Yet others concern themselves with what kind of search should be embodied in any automated theorem prover, or to what degree any automated theorem prover should resemble Prolog. Still others debate whether natural deduction or semantic tableaux or resolution is "better", and call this a part of the philosophy of automated theorem proving. Some people wonder whether automated theorem proving should be "human oriented " or
Analysis and Transformation of Proof Procedures
, 1994
"... Automated theorem proving has made great progress during the last few decades. Proofs of more and more difficult theorems are being found faster and faster. However, the exponential increase in the size of the search space remains for many theorem proving problems. Logic program analysis and transfo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Automated theorem proving has made great progress during the last few decades. Proofs of more and more difficult theorems are being found faster and faster. However, the exponential increase in the size of the search space remains for many theorem proving problems. Logic program analysis and transformation techniques have also made progress during the last few years and automated theorem proving can benefit from these techniques if they can be made applicable to general theorem proving problems. In this thesis we investigate the applicability of logic program analysis and transformation techniques to automated theorem proving. Our aim is to speed up theorem provers by avoiding useless search. This is done by detecting and deleting parts of the theorem prover and theory under consideration that are not needed for proving a given formula. The analysis and transformation techniques developed for logic programs can be applied in automated theorem proving via a programming technique called ...
Modelling Social Interaction Attitudes in MultiAgent Systems
, 2001
"... Abstract 2 Most autonomous agents are situated in a social context and need to interact with other agents (both human and artificial) to complete their problem solving objectives. Such agents are usually capable of performing a wide range of actions and engaging in a variety of social interactions. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract 2 Most autonomous agents are situated in a social context and need to interact with other agents (both human and artificial) to complete their problem solving objectives. Such agents are usually capable of performing a wide range of actions and engaging in a variety of social interactions. Faced with this variety of options, an agent must decide what to do. There are many potential decision making functions that could be employed to make the choice. Each such function will have a different effect on the success of the individual agent and of the overall system in which it is situated. To this end, this thesis examines agents ’ decision making functions to ascertain their likely properties and attributes. A novel framework for characterising social decision making is presented which provides explicit reasoning about the potential benefits of the individual agent, particular subgroups of agents or the overall system. This framework enables multifarious social interaction attitudes to be identified and defined; ranging from the purely selfinterested to the purely altruistic. In particular, however, the focus is on the spectrum of socially responsible agent behaviours in which agents attempt to balance their own needs with those of the overall system. Such behaviour aims to ensure that both the agent and the overall system perform well.
Subproblem finder and instance checker, two cooperating preprocessors for theorem provers
 In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Artijicial Intelligence (Tokyo
, 1979
"... 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 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
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 resolutionbased connection graph theorem prover alone.