## A proof-producing decision procedure for real arithmetic (2005)

### Cached

### Download Links

- [www.cl.cam.ac.uk]
- [apache2.risc.uni-linz.ac.at]
- DBLP

### Other Repositories/Bibliography

Venue: | Automated deduction – CADE-20. 20th international conference on automated deduction |

Citations: | 24 - 3 self |

### BibTeX

@INPROCEEDINGS{Mclaughlin05aproof-producing,

author = {Sean Mclaughlin and John Harrison},

title = {A proof-producing decision procedure for real arithmetic},

booktitle = {Automated deduction – CADE-20. 20th international conference on automated deduction},

year = {2005},

pages = {295--314},

publisher = {Springer-Verlag}

}

### Years of Citing Articles

### OpenURL

### Abstract

Abstract. We present a fully proof-producing implementation of a quantifierelimination procedure for real closed fields. To our knowledge, this is the first generally useful proof-producing 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 low-level 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 partic-ular 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 non-trivial 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 certifi-cate 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 aris-ing 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