Results 1  10
of
14
COMPARING APPROACHES TO RESOLUTION BASED HIGHERORDER THEOREM PROVING
, 2002
"... We investigate several approaches to resolution based automated theorem proving in classical higherorder logic (based on Church’s simply typed λcalculus) and discuss their requirements with respect to Henkin completeness and full extensionality. In particular we focus on Andrews’ higherorder res ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We investigate several approaches to resolution based automated theorem proving in classical higherorder logic (based on Church’s simply typed λcalculus) and discuss their requirements with respect to Henkin completeness and full extensionality. In particular we focus on Andrews’ higherorder resolution (Andrews 1971), Huet’s constrained resolution (Huet 1972), higherorder Eresolution, and extensional higherorder resolution (Benzmüller and Kohlhase 1997). With the help of examples we illustrate the parallels and differences of the extensionality treatment of these approaches and demonstrate that extensional higherorder resolution is the sole approach that can completely avoid additional extensionality axioms.
LEO  A HigherOrder Theorem Prover
 In Proc. of CADE15, volume 1421 of LNAI
, 1998
"... this paper was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in grant HOTEL. EXT ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in grant HOTEL. EXT
Algorithms, datastructures, and other issues in efficient automated deduction
 Automated Reasoning. 1st. International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2001, number 2083 in LNAI
, 2001
"... Abstract. Algorithms and datastructures form the kernel of any efficient theorem prover. In this abstract we discuss research on algorithms and datastructures for efficient theorem proving based on our experience with the theorem prover Vampire. We also briefly overview other works related to algori ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. Algorithms and datastructures form the kernel of any efficient theorem prover. In this abstract we discuss research on algorithms and datastructures for efficient theorem proving based on our experience with the theorem prover Vampire. We also briefly overview other works related to algorithms and datastructures, and to efficient theorem proving in general. 1
Using Decision Procedures With a HigherOrder Logic
 In Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics: 14th International Conference, TPHOLs 2001
, 2001
"... In automated reasoning, there is a perceived tradeo between expressiveness and automation. Higherorder logic is typically viewed as expressive but resistant to automation, in contrast with rstorder logic and its fragments. We argue that higherorder logic and its variants actually achieve a happy ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In automated reasoning, there is a perceived tradeo between expressiveness and automation. Higherorder logic is typically viewed as expressive but resistant to automation, in contrast with rstorder logic and its fragments. We argue that higherorder logic and its variants actually achieve a happy medium between expressiveness and automation, particularly when used as a frontend to a wide range of decision procedures and deductive procedures. We illustrate the discussion with examples from PVS, but some of the observations apply to other variants of higherorder logic as well.
Higherorder aspects and context in SUMO
 Journal of Web Semantics (Special Issue on Reasoning with context in the Semantic Web
, 2012
"... This article addresses the automation of higherorder aspects in expressive ontologies such as the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology SUMO. Evidence is provided that modern higherorder automated theorem provers like LEOII can be fruitfully employed for the task. A particular focus is on embedded for ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This article addresses the automation of higherorder aspects in expressive ontologies such as the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology SUMO. Evidence is provided that modern higherorder automated theorem provers like LEOII can be fruitfully employed for the task. A particular focus is on embedded formulas (formulas as terms), which are used in SUMO, for example, for modeling temporal, epistemic, or doxastic contexts. This modeling is partly in conflict with SUMO’s assumption of a bivalent, classical semantics and it may hence lead to counterintuitive reasoning results with automated theorem provers in practice. A solution is proposed that maps SUMO to quantified multimodal logic which is in turn modeled as a fragment of classical higherorder logic. This way automated higherorder theorem provers can be safely applied for reasoning about modal contexts in SUMO. Our findings are of wider relevance as they analogously apply to other expressive ontologies and knowledge representation formalisms.
System description: LEO – a resolution based higherorder theorem prover
 IN PROC. OF LPAR05 WORKSHOP: EMPIRICALLY SUCCESSFULL AUTOMATED REASONING IN HIGHERORDER LOGIC (ESHOL), MONTEGO
, 2005
"... We present Leo, a resolution based theorem prover for classical higherorder logic. It can be employed as both an fully automated theorem prover and an interactive theorem prover. Leo has been implemented as part of the Ωmega environment [23] and has been integrated with the Ωmega proof assistant. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present Leo, a resolution based theorem prover for classical higherorder logic. It can be employed as both an fully automated theorem prover and an interactive theorem prover. Leo has been implemented as part of the Ωmega environment [23] and has been integrated with the Ωmega proof assistant. Higherorder resolution proofs developed with Leo can be displayed and communicated to the user via Ωmega’s graphical user interface Loui. The Leo system has recently been successfully coupled with a firstorder resolution theorem prover (Bliksem).
System description: LEO — a higherorder theorem prover
 In Proc. of CADE15, volume 1421 of LNAI
, 1998
"... Many (mathematical) problems, such as Cantor’s theorem, can be expressed very elegantly in higherorder logic, but lead to an exhaustive and unintuitive formulation when coded in firstorder logic. Thus, despite the difficulty of higherorder automated theorem proving, which has to deal with proble ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Many (mathematical) problems, such as Cantor’s theorem, can be expressed very elegantly in higherorder logic, but lead to an exhaustive and unintuitive formulation when coded in firstorder logic. Thus, despite the difficulty of higherorder automated theorem proving, which has to deal with problems like the undecidability of higherorder unification (HOU) and the need for primitive substitution, there are proof problems which lie beyond the capabilities of firstorder theorem provers, but instead can be solved easily by an higherorder theorem prover (HOATP) like Leo. This is due to the expressiveness of higherorder Logic and, in the special case of Leo, due to an appropriate handling of the extensionality principles (functional extensionality and extensionality on truth values). Leo uses a higherorder Logic based upon Church’s simply typed λcalculus, so that the comprehension axioms are implicitly handled by αβηequality. Leo employs a higherorder resolution calculus ERES (see [3] in this volume for details), where the search for empty clauses and higherorder preunification [6] are
A Lost Proof
 IN TPHOLS: WORK IN PROGRESS PAPERS
, 2001
"... We reinvestigate a proof example presented by George Boolos which perspicuously illustrates Gödel’s argument for the potentially drastic increase of prooflengths in formal systems when carrying through the argument at too low a level. More concretely, restricting the order of the logic in which t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We reinvestigate a proof example presented by George Boolos which perspicuously illustrates Gödel’s argument for the potentially drastic increase of prooflengths in formal systems when carrying through the argument at too low a level. More concretely, restricting the order of the logic in which the proof is carried through to the order of the logic in which the problem is formulated in the first place can result in unmanageable long proofs, although there are short proofs in a logic of higher order. Our motivation in this paper is of practical nature and its aim is to sketch the implications of this example to current technology in automated theorem proving, to point to related questions about the foundational character of type theory (without explicit comprehension axioms) for mathematics, and to work out some challenging aspects with regard to the automation of this proof – which, as we belief, nicely illustrates the discrepancy between the creativity and intuition required in mathematics and the limitations of state of the art theorem provers.
A Challenge for Mechanized Deduction
, 2001
"... We reinvestigate a proof example presented by George Boolos which perspicuously illustrates Godel's argument for the potentially drastic increase of prooflengths in formal systems when carrying through the argument at too low a level. More concretely, restricting the order of the logic i ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
We reinvestigate a proof example presented by George Boolos which perspicuously illustrates Godel's argument for the potentially drastic increase of prooflengths in formal systems when carrying through the argument at too low a level. More concretely, restricting the order of the logic in which the proof is carried through to the order of the logic in which the problem is formulated in the rst place can result in unmanageable long proofs, although there are short proofs in a logic of higher order.