Results 1  10
of
93
Automated Deduction by Theory Resolution
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1985
"... Theory resolution constitutes a set of complete procedures for incorporating theories into a resolution theoremproving program, thereby making it unnecessary to resolve directly upon axioms of the theory. This can greatly reduce the length of proofs and the size of the search space. Theory resoluti ..."
Abstract

Cited by 121 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Theory resolution constitutes a set of complete procedures for incorporating theories into a resolution theoremproving program, thereby making it unnecessary to resolve directly upon axioms of the theory. This can greatly reduce the length of proofs and the size of the search space. Theory resolution effects a beneficial division of labor, improving the performance of the theorem prover and increasing the applicability of the specialized reasoning procedures. Total theory resolution utilizes a decision procedure that is capable of determining unsatisfiability of any set of clauses using predicates in the theory. Partial theory resolution employs a weaker decision procedure that can determine potential unsatisfiability of sets of literals. Applications include the building in of both mathematical and special decision procedures, e.g., for the taxonomic information furnished by a knowledge representation system. Theory resolution is a generalization of numerous previously known resolution refinements. Its power is demonstrated by comparing solutions of "Schubert's Steamroller" challenge problem with and without building in axioms through theory resolution. 1 1
Classical Type Theory
, 2001
"... Contents 1 Introduction to type theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 1.1 Early versions of type theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 1.2 Type theory with notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969 1.3 The ..."
Abstract

Cited by 105 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Contents 1 Introduction to type theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 1.1 Early versions of type theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 1.2 Type theory with notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 969 1.3 The Axiom of Choice and Skolemization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 973 1.4 The expressiveness of type theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975 1.5 Set theory as an alternative to type theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 976 2 Metatheoretical foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977 2.1 The Unifying Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977 2.2 Expansion proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978 2.3 Proof translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982 2.4 Higherorder uni cation . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1987
"... A Prolog technology theorem prover (PTTP) is an extension of Prolog that is complete for the full firstorder predicate calculus. It differs from Prolog in its use of unification with the occurs check for soundness, the modelelimination reduction rule that is added to Prolog inferences to make the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 100 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A Prolog technology theorem prover (PTTP) is an extension of Prolog that is complete for the full firstorder predicate calculus. It differs from Prolog in its use of unification with the occurs check for soundness, the modelelimination reduction rule that is added to Prolog inferences to make the inference system complete, and depthfirst iterativedeepening search instead of unbounded depthfirst search to make the search strategy complete. A Prolog technology theorem prover has been implemented by an extended PrologtoLISP compiler that supports these additional features. It is capable of proving theorems in the full firstorder predicate calculus at a rate of thousands of inferences per second. 1 This is a revised and expanded version of a paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Oxford, England, July 1986, and is to appear in Journal of Automated Reasoning. This research was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under Co...
On Generating Small Clause Normal Forms
, 1998
"... In this paper we focus on two powerful techniques to obtain compact clause normal forms: Renaming of formulae and refined Skolemization methods. We illustrate their effect on various examples. By an exhaustive experiment of all firstorder TPTP problems, it shows that our clause normal form tran ..."
Abstract

Cited by 90 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we focus on two powerful techniques to obtain compact clause normal forms: Renaming of formulae and refined Skolemization methods. We illustrate their effect on various examples. By an exhaustive experiment of all firstorder TPTP problems, it shows that our clause normal form transformation yields fewer clauses and fewer literals than the methods known and used so far. This often allows for exponentially shorter proofs and, in some cases, it makes it even possible for a theorem prover to find a proof where it was unable to do so with more standard clause normal form transformations. 1
tps: A theorem proving system for classical type theory
 Journal of Automated Reasoning
, 1996
"... This is a description of TPS, a theorem proving system for classical type theory (Church’s typed λcalculus). 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 comb ..."
Abstract

Cited by 71 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This is a description of TPS, a theorem proving system for classical type theory (Church’s typed λcalculus). 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 which TPS can prove completely automatically are given to illustrate certain aspects of TPS’s behavior and problems of theorem proving in higherorder logic. 7
PROOFS IN HIGHERORDER LOGIC
, 1983
"... Expansion trees are defined as generalizations of Herbrand instances for formulas in a nonextensional form of higherorder logic based on Church’s simple theory of types. Such expansion trees can be defined with or without the use of skolem functions. These trees store substitution terms and either ..."
Abstract

Cited by 71 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Expansion trees are defined as generalizations of Herbrand instances for formulas in a nonextensional form of higherorder logic based on Church’s simple theory of types. Such expansion trees can be defined with or without the use of skolem functions. These trees store substitution terms and either critical variables or skolem terms used to instantiate quantifiers in the original formula and those resulting from instantiations. An expansion tree is called an expansion tree proof (ETproof) if it encodes a tautology, and, in the form not using skolem functions, an “imbedding ” relation among the critical variables be acyclic. The relative completeness result for expansion tree proofs not using skolem functions, i.e. if A is provable in higherorder logic then A has such an expansion tree proof, is based on Andrews ’ formulation of Takahashi’s proof of the cutelimination theorem for higherorder logic. If the occurrences of skolem functions in instantiation terms are restricted appropriately, the use of skolem functions in place of critical variables is equivalent to the requirement that the imbedding relation is acyclic. This fact not only resolves the open question of what
Fundamentals Of Deductive Program Synthesis
 IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
, 1992
"... An informal tutorial is presented for program synthesis, with an emphasis on deductive methods. According to this approach, to construct a program meeting a given specification, we prove the existence of an object meeting the specified conditions. The proof is restricted to be sufficiently construct ..."
Abstract

Cited by 65 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
An informal tutorial is presented for program synthesis, with an emphasis on deductive methods. According to this approach, to construct a program meeting a given specification, we prove the existence of an object meeting the specified conditions. The proof is restricted to be sufficiently constructive, in the sense that, in establishing the existence of the desired output, the proof is forced to indicate a computational method for finding it. That method becomes the basis for a program that can be extracted from the proof. The exposition is based on the deductivetableau system, a theoremproving framework particularly suitable for program synthesis. The system includes a nonclausal resolution rule, facilities for reasoning about equality, and a wellfounded induction rule. INTRODUCTION This is an introduction to program synthesis, the derivation of a program to meet a given specification. It focuses on the deductive approach, in which the derivation task is regarded as a problem of ...
A Prologlike Inference System for Computing MinimumCost Abductive Explanations in NaturalLanguage Interpretation
, 1988
"... By determining what added assumptions would suffice to make the logical form of a sentence in natural language provable, abductive inference can be used in the interpretation of sentences to determine what information should be added to the listener's knowledge, i.e., what he should learn from the s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 47 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
By determining what added assumptions would suffice to make the logical form of a sentence in natural language provable, abductive inference can be used in the interpretation of sentences to determine what information should be added to the listener's knowledge, i.e., what he should learn from the sentence. This is a comparatively new application of mechanized abduction. A new form of abductionleast specific abductionis proposed as being more appropriate to the task of interpreting natural language than the forms that have been used in the traditional diagnostic and designsynthesis applications of abduction. The assignment of numerical costs to axioms and assumable literals permits specification of preferences on different abductive explanations. A new Prologlike inference system that computes abductive explanations and their costs is given. To facilitate the computation of minimumcost explanations, the inference system, unlike others such as Prolog, is designed to avoid the repeated use of the same instance of an axiom or assumption.
Specifying and Implementing Theorem Provers in a HigherOrder Logic Programming Language
, 1989
"... We argue that a logic programming language with a higherorder intuitionistic logic as its foundation can be used both to naturally specify and implement theorem provers. The language extends traditional logic programming languages by replacing firstorder terms with simplytyped λterms, replacing ..."
Abstract

Cited by 46 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We argue that a logic programming language with a higherorder intuitionistic logic as its foundation can be used both to naturally specify and implement theorem provers. The language extends traditional logic programming languages by replacing firstorder terms with simplytyped λterms, replacing firstorder unification with higherorder unification, and allowing implication and universal quantification in queries and the bodies of clauses. Inference rules for a variety of proof systems can be naturally specified in this language. The higherorder features of the language contribute to a concise specification of provisos concerning variable occurrences in formulas and the discharge of assumptions present in many proof systems. In addition, abstraction in metaterms allows the construction of terms representing object level proofs which capture the notions of abstractions found in many proof systems. The operational interpretations of the connectives of the language provide a set of basic search operations which describe goaldirected search for proofs. To emphasize the generality of the metalanguage, we compare it to another general specification language: the Logical Framework (LF). We describe a translation which compiles a specification of a logic in LF to a set of formulas of our metalanguage, and
Modality in Dialogue: Planning, Pragmatics and Computation
, 1998
"... Natural language generation (NLG) is first and foremost a reasoning task. In this reasoning, a system plans a communicative act that will signal key facts about the domain to the hearer. In generating action descriptions, this reasoning draws on characterizations both of the causal properties of the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 36 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Natural language generation (NLG) is first and foremost a reasoning task. In this reasoning, a system plans a communicative act that will signal key facts about the domain to the hearer. In generating action descriptions, this reasoning draws on characterizations both of the causal properties of the domain and the states of knowledge of the participants in the conversation. This dissertation shows how such characterizations can be specified declaratively and accessed efficiently in NLG. The heart of this dissertation is a study of logical statements about knowledge and action in modal logic. By investigating the prooftheory of modal logic from a logic programming point of view, I show how many kinds of modal statements can be seen as straightforward instructions for computationally manageable search, just as Prolog clauses can. These modal statements provide sufficient expressive resources for an NLG system to represent the effects of actions in the world or to model an addressee whose knowledge in some respects exceeds and in other respects falls short of its own. To illustrate the use of such statements, I describe how the SPUD sentence planner exploits a modal knowledge base to