Results 1  10
of
53
Comparing approaches to the exploration of the domain of residue classes
 ARTICLE SUBMITTED TO JOURNAL OF SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION
, 2002
"... We report on a case study on combining proof planning with computer algebra systems. We construct proofs for basic algebraic properties of residue classes as well as for isomorphisms between residue classes using different proof techniques, which are implemented as strategies in a multistrategy ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We report on a case study on combining proof planning with computer algebra systems. We construct proofs for basic algebraic properties of residue classes as well as for isomorphisms between residue classes using different proof techniques, which are implemented as strategies in a multistrategy proof planner. The search space of the proof planner can be drastically reduced by employing computations of two computer algebra systems during the planning process. To test the eectiveness of our approach we carried out a large number of experiments and also compared it with some alternative approaches. In particular, we experimented with substituting computer algebra by model generation and by proving theorems with a first order equational theorem prover instead of a proof planner.
Exploring Properties of Residue Classes
, 2000
"... We report on an experiment in exploring properties of residue classes over the integers with the combined effort of a multistrategy proof planner and two computer algebra systems. An exploration module classifies a given set and a given operation in terms of the algebraic structure they form. It th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We report on an experiment in exploring properties of residue classes over the integers with the combined effort of a multistrategy proof planner and two computer algebra systems. An exploration module classifies a given set and a given operation in terms of the algebraic structure they form. It then calls the proof planner to prove or refute simple properties of the operation. Moreover, we use different proof planning strategies to implement various proving techniques: from naive testing of all possible cases to elaborate techniques of equational reasoning and reduction to known cases.
A Generic Modular Data Structure for Proof Attempts Alternating on Ideas and Granularity
 Proceedings of MKM’05, volume 3863 of LNAI, IUB
, 2006
"... Abstract. A practically useful mathematical assistant system requires the sophisticated combination of interaction and automation. Central in such a system is the proof data structure, which has to maintain the current proof state and which has to allow the flexible interplay of various components i ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. A practically useful mathematical assistant system requires the sophisticated combination of interaction and automation. Central in such a system is the proof data structure, which has to maintain the current proof state and which has to allow the flexible interplay of various components including the human user. We describe a parameterized proof data structure for the management of proofs, which includes our experience with the development of two proof assistants. It supports and bridges the gap between abstract level proof explanation and lowlevel proof verification. The proof data structure enables, in particular, the flexible handling of lemmas, the maintenance of different proof alternatives, and the representation of different granularities of proof attempts. 1
A Proof Planning Framework for Isabelle
, 2005
"... Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Proof planning is a paradigm for the automation of proof that focuses on encoding intelligence to guide the proof process. The idea is to capture common patterns of reasoning which can be used to derive abstract descriptions of proofs known as proof plans. These can then be executed to provide fully formal proofs. This thesis concerns the development and analysis of a novel approach to proof planning that focuses on an explicit representation of choices during search. We embody our approach as a proof planner for the generic proof assistant Isabelle and use the Isar language, which is humanreadable and machinecheckable, to represent proof plans. Within this framework we develop an inductive theorem prover as a case study of our approach to proof planning. Our prover uses the difference reduction heuristic known as rippling to automate the step cases of the inductive proofs. The development of a flexible approach to rippling that supports its various modifications and extensions is the second major focus of this thesis. Here, our inductive theorem prover provides a context in which to evaluate rippling experimentally. This work results in an efficient and powerful inductive theorem prover for Isabelle as well as proposals for further improving the efficiency of rippling. We also draw observations in order
Proof Development with ΩMEGA
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 18TH CONFERENCE ON AUTOMATED DEDUCTION (CADE–18), VOLUME 2392 OF LNAI
, 2002
"... ..."
Automatic learning of proof methods in proof planning
 L. J. of the IGPL
, 2002
"... Our research interests in this project are in exploring how automated reasoning systems can learn theorem proving strategies. In particular, we are looking into how a proof planning system (Bundy, 1988) can automatically learn ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Our research interests in this project are in exploring how automated reasoning systems can learn theorem proving strategies. In particular, we are looking into how a proof planning system (Bundy, 1988) can automatically learn
Employing Theory Formation to Guide Proof Planning
, 2002
"... The invention of suitable concepts to characterise mathematical structures is one of the most challenging tasks for both human mathematicians and automated theorem provers alike. We present an approach where automatic concept formation is used to guide nonisomorphism proofs in the residue class ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The invention of suitable concepts to characterise mathematical structures is one of the most challenging tasks for both human mathematicians and automated theorem provers alike. We present an approach where automatic concept formation is used to guide nonisomorphism proofs in the residue class domain. The main idea behind the proof is to automatically identify discriminants for two given structures to show that they are not isomorphic. Suitable discriminants are generated by a theory formation system; the overall proof is constructed by a proof planner with the additional support of traditional automated theorem provers and a computer algebra system.
Classifying Isomorphic Residue Classes
 In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Computer Aided Systems Theory (EuroCAST 2001), volume 2178 of LNCS
, 2001
"... We report on a case study on combining proof planning with computer algebra systems. We construct proofs for basic algebraic properties of residue classes as well as for isomorphisms between residue classes using different proving techniques, which are implemented as strategies in a multistrategy p ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We report on a case study on combining proof planning with computer algebra systems. We construct proofs for basic algebraic properties of residue classes as well as for isomorphisms between residue classes using different proving techniques, which are implemented as strategies in a multistrategy proof planner. We show how these techniques help to successfully derive proofs in our domain and explain how the search space of the proof planner can be drastically reduced by employing computations of two computer algebra systems during the planning process. Moreover, we discuss the results of experiments we conducted which give evidence that with the help of the computer algebra systems the planner is able to solve problems for which it would fail to create a proof otherwise.
Automatic learning in proof planning
 ECAI2002: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, 2002
"... Abstract. In this paper we present a framework for automatedlearning within mathematical reasoning systems. In particular, this framework enables proof planning systems to automatically learnnew proof methods from well chosen examples of proofs which use a similar reasoning pattern to prove related ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this paper we present a framework for automatedlearning within mathematical reasoning systems. In particular, this framework enables proof planning systems to automatically learnnew proof methods from well chosen examples of proofs which use a similar reasoning pattern to prove related theorems. Our frameworkconsists of a representation formalism for methods and a machine learning technique which can learn methods using this representationformalism. We present the implementation of this framework within the \Omega MEGA proof planning system, and some experiments we ran onthis implementation to evaluate the validity of our approach.
Interactive theorem proving with tasks
 Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 103 (2004
, 2004
"... Interactive theorem proving systems for mathematics require user interfaces which allow for user interaction that is as natural as possible. However, this interaction is often limited by the traditional calculi underlying most theorem proving systems. This is particularly problematic with respect to ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Interactive theorem proving systems for mathematics require user interfaces which allow for user interaction that is as natural as possible. However, this interaction is often limited by the traditional calculi underlying most theorem proving systems. This is particularly problematic with respect to the application of assertions and intuitive presentation of proof states. In this paper we show how a more flexible user interaction can be realized when traditional calculi for classical logic are replaced by a less restrictive reasoning engine, the recently developed CORE [2] system. We describe the task level which is built on top of the CORE system and combines the Proof by Pointing approach [5] with a flexible mechanism for the application of assertions that avoids decomposition and abstracts from the syntactical form of an assertion. We demonstrate how proof steps that are difficult to implement in other systems, like forward application of assertions, are quite naturally supported by the underlying CORE system and are therefore straightforward to realize at the task level.