Results 1  10
of
14
The TPS theorem proving system
 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Argonne, Illinois
, 1988
"... TPS is a theorem proving system for first and higherorder logic which runs in Common Lisp and can operate in automatic, semiautomatic, and interactive modes. As its logical language TPS uses the typed Acalculus [6], in which most theorems of mathematics can be expressed very directly. TPS can be ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
TPS is a theorem proving system for first and higherorder logic which runs in Common Lisp and can operate in automatic, semiautomatic, and interactive modes. As its logical language TPS uses the typed Acalculus [6], in which most theorems of mathematics can be expressed very directly. TPS can be used to search for an expansion proof [10, 11] of a theorem, which represents in a nonredtmdant way the basic combinatorial information required to construct a proof of
Proof Transformations in HigherOrder Logic
, 1987
"... We investigate the problem of translating between different styles of proof systems in higherorder logic: analytic proofs which are well suited for automated theorem proving, and nonanalytic deductions which are well suited for the mathematician. Analytic proofs are represented as expansion proofs, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 27 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate the problem of translating between different styles of proof systems in higherorder logic: analytic proofs which are well suited for automated theorem proving, and nonanalytic deductions which are well suited for the mathematician. Analytic proofs are represented as expansion proofs, H, a form of the sequent calculus we define, nonanalytic proofs are represented by natural deductions. A nondeterministic translation algorithm between expansion proofs and Hdeductions is presented and its correctness is proven. We also present an algorithm for translation in the other direction and prove its correctness. A cutelimination algorithm for expansion proofs is given and its partial correctness is proven. Strong termination of this algorithm remains a conjecture for the full higherorder system, but is proven for the firstorder fragment. We extend the translations to a nonanalytic proof system which contains a primitive notion of equality, while leaving the notion of expansion proof unaltered. This is possible, since a nonextensional equality is definable in our system of type theory. Next we extend analytic and nonanalytic proof systems and the translations between them to include extensionality. Finally, we show how the methods and notions used so far apply to the problem of translating expansion proofs into natural deductions. Much care is taken to specify this translation in a
TPS: A TheoremProving System for Classical Type Theory
, 1996
"... . This is description of TPS, a theoremproving system for classical type theory (Church's typed #calculus). TPS has been designed to be a general research tool for manipulating wffs of first and higherorder logic, and searching for proofs of such wffs interactively or automatically, or in a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. This is description of TPS, a theoremproving system for classical type theory (Church's typed #calculus). TPS has been designed to be a general research tool for manipulating wffs of first and higherorder logic, and searching for proofs of such wffs interactively or automatically, or in a combination of these modes. An important feature of TPS is the ability to translate between expansion proofs and natural deduction proofs. Examples of theorems that TPS can prove completely automatically are given to illustrate certain aspects of TPS's behavior and problems of theorem proving in higherorder logic. AMS Subject Classification: 0304, 68T15, 03B35, 03B15, 03B10. Key words: higherorder logic, type theory, mating, connection, expansion proof, natural deduction. 1. Introduction TPS is a theoremproving system for classical type theory ## (Church's typed #calculus [20]) which has been under development at Carnegie Mellon University for a number years. This paper gives a general...
Nivelle. Automated proof construction in type theory using resolution
 Special Issue Mechanizing and Automating Mathematics: In honour of N.G. de Bruijn
, 2002
"... Abstract. We provide techniques to integrate resolution logic with equality in type theory. The results may be rendered as follows. − A clausification procedure in type theory, equipped with a correctness proof, all encoded using higherorder primitive recursion. − A novel representation of clauses ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We provide techniques to integrate resolution logic with equality in type theory. The results may be rendered as follows. − A clausification procedure in type theory, equipped with a correctness proof, all encoded using higherorder primitive recursion. − A novel representation of clauses in minimal logic such that the λrepresentation of resolution steps is linear in the size of the premisses. − A translation of resolution proofs into lambda terms, yielding a verification procedure for those proofs. − The power of resolution theorem provers becomes available in interactive proof construction systems based on type theory. 1.
Presenting intuitive deductions via symmetric simplification
 In CADE10: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Automated deduction
, 1990
"... In automated deduction systems that are intended for human use, the presentation of a proof is no less important than its discovery. For most of today’s automated theorem proving systems, this requires a nontrivial translation procedure to extract humanoriented deductions from machineoriented pro ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In automated deduction systems that are intended for human use, the presentation of a proof is no less important than its discovery. For most of today’s automated theorem proving systems, this requires a nontrivial translation procedure to extract humanoriented deductions from machineoriented proofs. Previously known translation procedures, though complete, tend to produce unintuitive deductions. One of the major flaws in such procedures is that too often the rule of indirect proof is used where the introduction of a lemma would result in a shorter and more intuitive proof. We present an algorithm, symmetric simplification, for discovering useful lemmas in deductions of theorems in first and higherorder logic. This algorithm, which has been implemented in the TPS system, has the feature that resulting deductions may no longer have the weak subformula property. It is currently limited, however, in that it only generates lemmas of the form C ∨ ¬C ′ , where C and C ′ have the same negation normal form. 1
Redirecting proofs by contradiction
"... This paper presents an algorithm that redirects proofs by contradiction. The input is a refutation graph, as produced by an automatic theorem prover (e.g., E, SPASS, Vampire, Z3); the output is a direct proof expressed in natural deduction extended with case analyses and nested subproofs. The algori ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper presents an algorithm that redirects proofs by contradiction. The input is a refutation graph, as produced by an automatic theorem prover (e.g., E, SPASS, Vampire, Z3); the output is a direct proof expressed in natural deduction extended with case analyses and nested subproofs. The algorithm is implemented in Isabelle’s Sledgehammer, where it enhances the legibility of machinegenerated proofs.
Uniform Variable Splitting
 IN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DOCTORAL PROGRAMME OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON AUTOMATED REASONING (IJCAR 2004
, 2007
"... ..."
Hammering towards QED
"... This paper surveys the emerging methods to automate reasoning over large libraries developed with formal proof assistants. We call these methods hammers. They give the authors of formal proofs a strong “onestroke ” tool for discharging difficult lemmas without the need for careful and detailed manu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This paper surveys the emerging methods to automate reasoning over large libraries developed with formal proof assistants. We call these methods hammers. They give the authors of formal proofs a strong “onestroke ” tool for discharging difficult lemmas without the need for careful and detailed manual programming of proof search. The main ingredients underlying this approach are efficient automatic theorem provers that can cope with hundreds of axioms, suitable translations of the proof assistant’s logic to the logic of the automatic provers, heuristic and learning methods that select relevant facts from large libraries, and methods that reconstruct the automatically found proofs inside the proof assistants. We outline the history of these methods, explain the main issues and techniques, and show their strength on several large benchmarks. We also discuss the relation of this technology to the QED Manifesto and consider its implications for QEDlike efforts. 1.
Proof transformations from searchoriented into interactionoriented tableau calculi
 Journal of Universal Computer Science
, 1999
"... Abstract: Logic calculi, and Gentzentype calculi in particular, can be categorised into two types: searchoriented and interactionoriented calculi. Both these types have certain inherentcharacteristics stemming from the purpose for which they are designed. In this paper, we give a general characte ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract: Logic calculi, and Gentzentype calculi in particular, can be categorised into two types: searchoriented and interactionoriented calculi. Both these types have certain inherentcharacteristics stemming from the purpose for which they are designed. In this paper, we give a general characterisation of the two types and present two calculi that are typical representatives of their respective class. We introduce a method for transforming proofs in the searchoriented calculus into proofs in the interactionoriented calculus, and we demonstrate that the di culties arising with devising such a transformation do not pertain to the speci c calculi we have chosen as examples but are general. We also give examples for the application of our transformation procedure.