Results 1 
4 of
4
A proof of the Kepler conjecture
 Math. Intelligencer
, 1994
"... This section describes the structure of the proof of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 107 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This section describes the structure of the proof of
A proofproducing decision procedure for real arithmetic
 Automated deduction – CADE20. 20th international conference on automated deduction
, 2005
"... Abstract. We present a fully proofproducing implementation of a quantifierelimination procedure for real closed fields. To our knowledge, this is the first generally useful proofproducing implementation of such an algorithm. Whilemany problems within the domain are intractable, we demonstrate conv ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We present a fully proofproducing implementation of a quantifierelimination procedure for real closed fields. To our knowledge, this is the first generally useful proofproducing 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 [8]. 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 lowlevel 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 particular 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 nontrivial nonlinear reasoning, even in such simple cases as 8x y 2 R. x> 0 ^ y> 0) xy> 0, and those that do [18] tend to use heuristicsrather than systematic complete methods. Many of the procedures are standalone decision algorithms that produce no certificate of correctness and do not produce a `proof ' in the usual sense. The earliest serious exception is described in [4]. Many of these restrictions are not so important in practice, since subproblems arising 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
Verifying nonlinear real formulas via sums of squares
 Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, TPHOLs 2007, volume 4732 of Lect. Notes in Comp. Sci
, 2007
"... Abstract. Techniques based on sums of squares appear promising as a general approach to the universal theory of reals with addition and multiplication, i.e. verifying Boolean combinations of equations and inequalities. A particularly attractive feature is that suitable ‘sum of squares ’ certificates ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Techniques based on sums of squares appear promising as a general approach to the universal theory of reals with addition and multiplication, i.e. verifying Boolean combinations of equations and inequalities. A particularly attractive feature is that suitable ‘sum of squares ’ certificates can be found by sophisticated numerical methods such as semidefinite programming, yet the actual verification of the resulting proof is straightforward even in a highly foundational theorem prover. We will describe our experience with an implementation in HOL Light, noting some successes as well as difficulties. We also describe a new approach to the univariate case that can handle some otherwise difficult examples. 1 Verifying nonlinear formulas over the reals Over the real numbers, there are algorithms that can in principle perform quantifier elimination from arbitrary firstorder formulas built up using addition, multiplication and the usual equality and inequality predicates. A classic example of such a quantifier elimination equivalence is the criterion for a quadratic equation to have a real root: ∀a b c. (∃x. ax 2 + bx + c = 0) ⇔ a = 0 ∧ (b = 0 ⇒ c = 0) ∨ a � = 0 ∧ b 2 ≥ 4ac
Programming and certifying the CAD algorithm inside the coq system
 Mathematics, Algorithms, Proofs, volume 05021 of Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Schloss Dagstuhl
, 2005
"... Abstract. A. Tarski has shown in 1975 that one can perform quantifier elimination in the theory of real closed fields. The introduction of the Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition (CAD) method has later allowed to design rather feasible algorithms. Our aim is to program a reflectional decision proced ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. A. Tarski has shown in 1975 that one can perform quantifier elimination in the theory of real closed fields. The introduction of the Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition (CAD) method has later allowed to design rather feasible algorithms. Our aim is to program a reflectional decision procedure for the Coq system, using the CAD, to decide whether a (possibly multivariate) system of polynomial inequalities with rational coefficients has a solution or not. We have therefore implemented various computer algebra tools like gcd computations, subresultant polynomial or Bernstein polynomials.