## INKA: The Next Generation (1996)

Citations: | 41 - 9 self |

### BibTeX

@INPROCEEDINGS{Hutter96inka:the,

author = {Dieter Hutter and Claus Sengler},

title = {INKA: The Next Generation},

booktitle = {},

year = {1996},

pages = {288--292},

publisher = {Springer}

}

### Years of Citing Articles

### OpenURL

### Abstract

. The INKA system is a first-order theorem prover with induction based on the explicit induction paradigm. Since 1986 when a first version of the INKA system was developed there have been many improvements. In this description we will give a short overview of the current system state and its abilities. 1 Introduction The original INKA system dates back to 1986 [2]. The current version of the INKA system which will be described below has been developed at DFKI GmbH 1 between 1991 and 1995. The INKA system is a first-order theorem prover with induction based on the explicit induction paradigm. In contrast to Nqthm, the Boyer-Moore prover, [3], the system is based on a full first-order calculus, a special variant of an ordersorted resolution calculus with paramodulation, [7]. However, it is not specialized on inductive proofs but possesses a powerful predicate-logic proof component. INKA is designed to be used for practical applications of inductive theorem proving, for instance, in th...

### Citations

530 |
A computational logic
- Boyer, Moore
- 1979
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... developed at DFKI GmbH 1 between 1991 and 1995. The INKA system is a first-order theorem prover with induction based on the explicit induction paradigm. In contrast to Nqthm, the Boyer-Moore prover, =-=[3]-=-, the system is based on a full first-order calculus, a special variant of an ordersorted resolution calculus with paramodulation, [7]. However, it is not specialized on inductive proofs but possesses... |

162 | A.: Rippling: A Heuristic for Guiding Inductive Proofs
- Bundy, Stevens, et al.
- 1993
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ven the annotated terms h(g(a) ; b) and h(a; f(b)) the grey parts represent the syntactical difference while the "white" parts denote the common structure (skeleton) of the terms. Rippling s=-=trategies [6, 4]-=- are based on the succession of skeletons and contexts within a formula. Describing a target formula by its succession of skeletons and contexts allows INKA to formulate proof sketches (or plans) for ... |

61 |
Guiding inductive proofs
- Hutter
- 1990
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...on syntactical differences the goal is divided step by step into appropriate subgoals until they can be easily solved. In order to represent differences of formulas INKA uses annotated terms (C-terms =-=[6]-=-) where each occurrence of a symbol in a formula has a specific color representing the information whether this annotated symbol constitutes a part of the syntactical difference (context). E.g. given ... |

45 |
On proving the termination of algorithms by machine
- Walther
- 1994
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...term into a constructor ground term. Hence, specifying an algorithm introduces the obligation to prove its "termination " which is done with the help of a recursion analysis using semantic o=-=rderings ([10], [5], [9]-=-). Once we succeed in proving the "termination" of an algorithm, its recursion ordering is well-founded and can be used to formulate induction schemes to create appropriate induction formula... |

32 |
The Karlsruhe induction theorem proving system
- Biundo, Hummel, et al.
- 1986
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...eveloped there have been many improvements. In this description we will give a short overview of the current system state and its abilities. 1 Introduction The original INKA system dates back to 1986 =-=[2]-=-. The current version of the INKA system which will be described below has been developed at DFKI GmbH 1 between 1991 and 1995. The INKA system is a first-order theorem prover with induction based on ... |

25 | Colouring terms to control equational reasoning
- Hutter
- 1997
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...ve to be moved in front of the skeleton or into sink positions (i.e. positions of non-induction variables) which is done with the help of annotated (C-)equations generated from the specification (see =-=[8]-=- for further details). In general, in INKA proving the equality of terms or equivalences of formulas is done by identifying their syntactical structure. In order to prove the equality of these structu... |

14 |
Automatisierung von Terminierungsbeweisen fur rekursiv definierte Algorithmen
- Giesl
- 1995
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...nto a constructor ground term. Hence, specifying an algorithm introduces the obligation to prove its "termination " which is done with the help of a recursion analysis using semantic orderin=-=gs ([10], [5], [9]). On-=-ce we succeed in proving the "termination" of an algorithm, its recursion ordering is well-founded and can be used to formulate induction schemes to create appropriate induction formulas. 3 ... |

10 | Termination of algorithms over non-freely generated datatypes
- Sengler
- 1996
(Show Context)
Citation Context ... constructor ground term. Hence, specifying an algorithm introduces the obligation to prove its "termination " which is done with the help of a recursion analysis using semantic orderings ([=-=10], [5], [9]). Once we-=- succeed in proving the "termination" of an algorithm, its recursion ordering is well-founded and can be used to formulate induction schemes to create appropriate induction formulas. 3 Guidi... |

3 |
Adapting a Resolution Calculus for Inductive Proofs
- Hutter
- 1992
(Show Context)
Citation Context ...induction paradigm. In contrast to Nqthm, the Boyer-Moore prover, [3], the system is based on a full first-order calculus, a special variant of an ordersorted resolution calculus with paramodulation, =-=[7]-=-. However, it is not specialized on inductive proofs but possesses a powerful predicate-logic proof component. INKA is designed to be used for practical applications of inductive theorem proving, for ... |