Results 1 - 2 of 2
- Automated deduction – CADE-20. 20th international conference on automated deduction , 2005
"... Abstract. We present a fully proof-producing implementation of a quantifierelimination procedure for real closed fields. To our knowledge, this is the first generally useful proof-producing implementation of such an algorithm. Whilemany problems within the domain are intractable, we demonstrate conv ..."
Abstract - Cited by 24 (3 self) - Add to MetaCart(Show Context)
Abstract. We present a fully proof-producing implementation of a quantifierelimination procedure for real closed fields. To our knowledge, this is the first generally useful proof-producing implementation of such an algorithm. Whilemany problems within the domain are intractable, we demonstrate convincing examples of its value in interactive theorem proving. 1 Overview and related work Arguably the first automated theorem prover ever written was for a theory of lineararithmetic . Nowadays many theorem proving systems, even those normally classified as `interactive ' rather than `automatic', contain procedures to automate routinearithmetical reasoning over some of the supported number systems like N, Z, Q, R and C. Experience shows that such automated support is invaluable in relieving users ofwhat would otherwise be tedious low-level proofs. We can identify several very common limitations of such procedures:- Often they are restricted to proving purely universal formulas rather than dealingwith arbitrary quantifier structure and performing general quantifier elimination.- Often they are not complete even for the supported class of formulas; in partic-ular procedures for the integers often fail on problems that depend inherently on divisibility properties (e.g. 8x y 2 Z. 2x + 1 6 = 2y)- They seldom handle non-trivial nonlinear reasoning, even in such simple cases as 8x y 2 R. x> 0 ^ y> 0) xy> 0, and those that do  tend to use heuristicsrather than systematic complete methods.- Many of the procedures are standalone decision algorithms that produce no certifi-cate of correctness and do not produce a `proof ' in the usual sense. The earliest serious exception is described in . Many of these restrictions are not so important in practice, since subproblems aris-ing in interactive proof can still often be handled effectively. Indeed, sometimes the restrictions are unavoidable: Tarski's theorem on the undefinability of truth implies thatthere cannot even be a complete semidecision procedure for nonlinear reasoning over