Results 1  10
of
26
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
Higher Order Logic
 In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming
, 1994
"... Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Definin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Defining data types : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 2.4 Describing processes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 8 2.5 Expressing convergence using second order validity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9 2.6 Truth definitions: the analytical hierarchy : : : : : : : : 10 2.7 Inductive definitions : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13 3 Canonical semantics of higher order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : 15 3.1 Tarskian semantics of second order logic : : : : : : : : : 15 3.2 Function and re
Quantified multimodal logics in simple type theory
, 2009
"... We present a straightforward embedding of quantified multimodal logic in simple type theory and prove its soundness and completeness. Modal operators are replaced by quantification over a type of possible worlds. We present simple experiments, using existing higherorder theorem provers, to demonstr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present a straightforward embedding of quantified multimodal logic in simple type theory and prove its soundness and completeness. Modal operators are replaced by quantification over a type of possible worlds. We present simple experiments, using existing higherorder theorem provers, to demonstrate that the embedding allows automated proofs of statements in these logics, as well as meta properties of them.
Experiments with an Agentoriented Reasoning System
 In In Proc. of KI 2001, volume 2174 of LNAI
, 2001
"... Abstract. This paper discusses experiments with an agent oriented approach to automated and interactive reasoning. The approach combines ideas from two subfields of AI (theorem proving/proof planning and multiagent systems) and makes use of state of the art distribution techniques to decentralise a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. This paper discusses experiments with an agent oriented approach to automated and interactive reasoning. The approach combines ideas from two subfields of AI (theorem proving/proof planning and multiagent systems) and makes use of state of the art distribution techniques to decentralise and spread its reasoning agents over the internet. It particularly supports cooperative proofs between reasoning systems which are strong in different application areas, e.g., higherorder and firstorder theorem provers and computer algebra systems. 1
Combined reasoning by automated cooperation
 JOURNAL OF APPLIED LOGIC
, 2008
"... Different reasoning systems have different strengths and weaknesses, and often it is useful to combine these systems to gain as much as possible from their strengths and retain as little as possible from their weaknesses. Of particular interest is the integration of firstorder and higherorder tech ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Different reasoning systems have different strengths and weaknesses, and often it is useful to combine these systems to gain as much as possible from their strengths and retain as little as possible from their weaknesses. Of particular interest is the integration of firstorder and higherorder techniques. Firstorder reasoning systems, on the one hand, have reached considerable strength in
some niches, but in many areas of mathematics they still cannot reliably solve relatively simple problems, for example, when
reasoning about sets, relations, or functions. Higherorder reasoning systems, on the other hand, can solve problems of this kind
automatically. But the complexity inherent in their calculi prevents them from solving a whole range of problems. However, while
many problems cannot be solved by any one system alone, they can be solved by a combination of these systems.
We present a general agentbased methodology for integrating different reasoning systems. It provides a generic integration
framework which facilitates the cooperation between diverse reasoners, but can also be refined to enable more efficient, specialist
integrations. We empirically evaluate its usefulness, effectiveness and efficiency by case studies involving the integration of first
order and higherorder automated theorem provers, computer algebra systems, and model generators.
Extensional higherorder resolution
 In Kirchner and Kirchner [KK98
, 1998
"... Abstract. In this paper we present an extensional higherorder resolution calculus that is complete relative to Henkin model semantics. The treatment of the extensionality principles – necessary for the completeness result – by specialized (goaldirected) inference rules is of practical applicabilit ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this paper we present an extensional higherorder resolution calculus that is complete relative to Henkin model semantics. The treatment of the extensionality principles – necessary for the completeness result – by specialized (goaldirected) inference rules is of practical applicability, as an implentation of the calculus in the LeoSystem shows. Furthermore, we prove the longstanding conjecture, that it is sufficient to restrict the order of primitive substitutions to the order of input formulae. 1
Automating access control logics in simple type theory with LEOII
 FB Informatik, U. des Saarlandes
, 2008
"... Abstract Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory and we have demonstrate ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract Garg and Abadi recently proved that prominent access control logics can be translated in a sound and complete way into modal logic S4. We have previously outlined how normal multimodal logics, including monomodal logics K and S4, can be embedded in simple type theory and we have demonstrated that the higherorder theorem prover LEOII can automate reasoning in and about them. In this paper we combine these results and describe a sound (and complete) embedding of different access control logics in simple type theory. Employing this framework we show that the off the shelf theorem prover LEOII can be applied to automate reasoning in and about prominent access control logics. 1
Multimodal and Intuitionistic Logics in Simple Type Theory
"... We study straightforward embeddings of propositional normal multimodal logic and propositional intuitionistic logic in simple type theory. The correctness of these embeddings is easily shown. We give examples to demonstrate that these embeddings provide an effective framework for computational inve ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study straightforward embeddings of propositional normal multimodal logic and propositional intuitionistic logic in simple type theory. The correctness of these embeddings is easily shown. We give examples to demonstrate that these embeddings provide an effective framework for computational investigations of various nonclassical logics. We report some experiments using the higherorder automated theorem prover LEOII.
HigherOrder Automated Theorem Proving
, 1998
"... Consistency Class) Let Ñ S be a class of sets of propositions, then Ñ S is called an abstract consistency class, iff each Ñ S is closed under subsets, and satisfies conditions (1) to (8) for all sets F 2 Ñ S . If it also satisfies (9), then we call it extensional. 1. If A is atomic, then A = 2 F or ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Consistency Class) Let Ñ S be a class of sets of propositions, then Ñ S is called an abstract consistency class, iff each Ñ S is closed under subsets, and satisfies conditions (1) to (8) for all sets F 2 Ñ S . If it also satisfies (9), then we call it extensional. 1. If A is atomic, then A = 2 F or :A = 2 F. 2. If A 2 F and if B is the bhnormal form of A, then B F 2 Ñ S 2 . 3. If ::A 2 F, then A F 2 Ñ S . 4. If AB2F, then F A 2 Ñ S or F B 2 Ñ S . 5. If :(AB) 2 F, then F :A :B2 Ñ S . 6. If P a A 2 F, then F AB 2 Ñ S for each closed formula B 2 wff a (S). 7. If :P a A 2 F, then F :(Aw a ) 2 Ñ S for any witness constant w a 2 W that does not occur in F. 8. If :(A = a!b B) 2 F, then F :(Aw a = Bw) 2 Ñ S for any witness constant w a 2 W that does not occur in F. 9. If :(A = o B) 2 F, then F[fA;:Bg 2 Ñ S or F[f:A;Bg 2 Ñ S . Here, we treat equality as an abbreviation for Leibniz definition. We call an abstract consistency class saturated, iff for all F 2 Ñ S and all...