Results 11  20
of
31
Nontrivial Symbolic Computations in Proof Planning
 In Proc. of FroCoS 2000, LNCS 1794
, 2000
"... We discuss a pragmatic approach to integrate computer algebra into proof planning. It is based on the idea to separate computation and verification and can thereby exploit the fact that many elaborate symbolic computations are trivially checked. In proof planning the separation is realized by using ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We discuss a pragmatic approach to integrate computer algebra into proof planning. It is based on the idea to separate computation and verification and can thereby exploit the fact that many elaborate symbolic computations are trivially checked. In proof planning the separation is realized by using a powerful computer algebra system during the planning process to do nontrivial symbolic computations. Results of these computations are checked during the refinement of a proof plan to a calculus level proof using a small, selfimplemented, system that gives us protocol information on its calculation. This protocol can be easily expanded into a checkable lowlevel calculus proof ensuring the correctness of the computation. We demonstrate our approach with the concrete implementation in the Omega system.
Verified Planning by Deductive Synthesis in Intuitionistic Linear Logic
"... We describe a new formalisation in Isabelle/HOL of Intuitionistic Linear Logic and consider the support this provides for constructing plans by proving the achievability of given planning goals. The plans so found are provably correct, by construction. This representation of plans in linear logic pr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We describe a new formalisation in Isabelle/HOL of Intuitionistic Linear Logic and consider the support this provides for constructing plans by proving the achievability of given planning goals. The plans so found are provably correct, by construction. This representation of plans in linear logic provides a concise account of planning with sensing actions, allows the creation and deletion of objects, and solves the frame problem in an elegant way. Within this setting, we show how planning algorithms are implemented as search strategies within a theorem proving system. This allows us to provide a flexible methodology for developing search strategies that is independent of soundness issues. This feature is illustrated in two ways. Firstly, following ideas from logic programming, we show how a significant symmetry in search, caused by context splitting, can be pruned by using a derived inference rule. Secondly, we show how domain specific constraints on synthesis are supported and how they can be used to find contingent or conformant plans. We illustrate the approach with example planning scenarios. 1.
Maple's Evaluation Process as Constraint Contextual Rewriting
 University of Western
, 2001
"... Maple's evaluator, together with a feature that is usually known as the assume facility, is a combination of modules with specialised reasoning capabilities. These modules are identi ed, their interfaces are speci ed, and their interplay is reconstructed as Constraint Contextual Rewriting (CC ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Maple's evaluator, together with a feature that is usually known as the assume facility, is a combination of modules with specialised reasoning capabilities. These modules are identi ed, their interfaces are speci ed, and their interplay is reconstructed as Constraint Contextual Rewriting (CCR), a powerful form of conditional rewriting that incorporates the services provided by a decision procedure. Finally we show how Maple's evaluation process can be strengthened by borrowing ideas from CCR.
The Control Layer in Open Mechanized Reasoning Systems: Annotations and Tactics
, 2000
"... We are interested in developing a methodology for integrating mechanized reasoning systems such as Theorem Provers, Computer Algebra Systems, and Model Checkers. Our approach is to provide a framework for specifying mechanized reasoning systems and to use specifications as a starting point for integ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We are interested in developing a methodology for integrating mechanized reasoning systems such as Theorem Provers, Computer Algebra Systems, and Model Checkers. Our approach is to provide a framework for specifying mechanized reasoning systems and to use specifications as a starting point for integration. We build on top of the work presented in Giunchiglia et al. (1994) which introduces the notion of Open Mechanized Reasoning Systems (OMRS) as a specification framework for integrating reasoning systems. An OMRS specification consists of three components: the logic component, the control component, and the interaction component. In this paper we focus on the control level. We propose to specify the control component by first adding control knowledge to the data structures representing the logic by means of annotations and then by specifying proof strategies via tactics. To show the adequacy of the approach we present and discuss a structured specification of constraint contextual rewriting as a set of cooperating specialized reasoning modules.
Proving Formally the Implementation of an Efficient gcd Algorithm for Polynomials
 in &quot;3rd International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR)&quot;, U. FURBACH, N. SHANKAR (editors). , Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
"... Abstract. We describe here a formal proof in the Coq system of the structure theorem for subresultants, which allows to prove formally the correctness of our implementation of the subresultants algorithm. Up to our knowledge it is the first mechanized proof of this result. 1 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We describe here a formal proof in the Coq system of the structure theorem for subresultants, which allows to prove formally the correctness of our implementation of the subresultants algorithm. Up to our knowledge it is the first mechanized proof of this result. 1
Providing a Formal Linkage between MDG and HOL
, 2002
"... We describe an approach for formally verifying the linkage between a symbolic state enumeration system and a theorem proving system. This involves the following three stages of proof. Firstly we prove theorems about the correctness of the translation part of the symbolic state system. It interface ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We describe an approach for formally verifying the linkage between a symbolic state enumeration system and a theorem proving system. This involves the following three stages of proof. Firstly we prove theorems about the correctness of the translation part of the symbolic state system. It interfaces between low level decision diagrams and high level description languages. We ensure that the semantics of a program is preserved in those of its translated form. Secondly we prove linkage theorems: theorems that justify introducing a result from a state enumeration system into a proof system. Finally we combine the translator correctness and linkage theorems. The resulting new linkage theorems convert results to a high level language from the low level decision diagrams that the result was actually proved about in the state enumeration system.They justify importing lowlevel external verification results into a theorem prover. We use a linkage between the HOL system and a simplified version of the MDG system to illustrate the ideas and consider a small example that integrates two applications from MDG and HOL to illustrate the linkage theorems.
Interfacing to computer algebra via term indexing
 In Proceedings of Calculemus. Elsevier
, 2006
"... this file with prentcsmacro.sty for your meeting, or with entcsmacro.sty for your meeting. Both can be found at the ENTCS Macro Home Page. blackrgb0,0,0 0.5 setgray0 0.5 setgray1 ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
this file with prentcsmacro.sty for your meeting, or with entcsmacro.sty for your meeting. Both can be found at the ENTCS Macro Home Page. blackrgb0,0,0 0.5 setgray0 0.5 setgray1
The Control Component of Open Mechanized Reasoning Systems
, 1999
"... We are interested in integrating mechanized reasoning systems such as, e.g., Theorem Provers and Computer Algebra Systems. Our approach to the problem is to provide a framework for specifying mechanized reasoning systems and to use specifications as a starting point for integration. We build on top ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We are interested in integrating mechanized reasoning systems such as, e.g., Theorem Provers and Computer Algebra Systems. Our approach to the problem is to provide a framework for specifying mechanized reasoning systems and to use specifications as a starting point for integration. We build on top of the work presented in [9] which introduces the notion of Open Mechanized Reasoning Systems (OMRS) as a specification framework for integrating reasoning systems. An OMRS specification consists of three components: the logic component, the control component, and the interaction component. In this paper we focus on the control level and propose to specify the control component by first adding control knowledge to the data structures representing the logic by means of annotations, and then by specifying proof strategies via tactics. To show the adequacy of the approach we present and discuss a structured specification of the toplevel inference strategy of NQTHM as a set of cooperating specialized reasoning modules.
A short survey of automated reasoning
"... Abstract. This paper surveys the field of automated reasoning, giving some historical background and outlining a few of the main current research themes. We particularly emphasize the points of contact and the contrasts with computer algebra. We finish with a discussion of the main applications so f ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. This paper surveys the field of automated reasoning, giving some historical background and outlining a few of the main current research themes. We particularly emphasize the points of contact and the contrasts with computer algebra. We finish with a discussion of the main applications so far. 1 Historical introduction The idea of reducing reasoning to mechanical calculation is an old dream [75]. Hobbes [55] made explicit the analogy in the slogan ‘Reason [...] is nothing but Reckoning’. This parallel was developed by Leibniz, who envisaged a ‘characteristica universalis’ (universal language) and a ‘calculus ratiocinator ’ (calculus of reasoning). His idea was that disputes of all kinds, not merely mathematical ones, could be settled if the parties translated their dispute into the characteristica and then simply calculated. Leibniz even made some steps towards realizing this lofty goal, but his work was largely forgotten. The characteristica universalis The dream of a truly universal language in Leibniz’s sense remains unrealized and probably unrealizable. But over the last few centuries a language that is at least adequate for