Kaiserslautern - Fachbereich Informatik
Refine
Year of publication
- 1999 (178) (remove)
Document Type
- Preprint (178) (remove)
Language
- English (178) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (178)
Keywords
Faculty / Organisational entity
The paper shows that characterizing the causal relationship between significant events is an important but non-trivial aspect for understanding the behavior of distributed programs. An introduction to the notion of causality and its relation to logical time is given; some fundamental results concerning the characterization of causality are pre- sented. Recent work on the detection of causal relationships in distributed computations is surveyed. The relative merits and limitations of the different approaches are discussed, and their general feasibility is analyzed.
Mechanised reasoning systems and computer algebra systems have apparentlydifferent objectives. Their integration is, however, highly desirable, since in manyformal proofs both of the two different tasks, proving and calculating, have to beperformed. Even more importantly, proof and computation are often interwoven andnot easily separable. In the context of producing reliable proofs, the question howto ensure correctness when integrating a computer algebra system into a mechanisedreasoning system is crucial. In this contribution, we discuss the correctness prob-lems that arise from such an integration and advocate an approach in which thecalculations of the computer algebra system are checked at the calculus level of themechanised reasoning system. This can be achieved by adding a verbose mode to thecomputer algebra system which produces high-level protocol information that can beprocessed by an interface to derive proof plans. Such a proof plan in turn can beexpanded to proofs at different levels of abstraction, so the approach is well-suited forproducing a high-level verbalised explication as well as for a low-level machine check-able calculus-level proof. We present an implementation of our ideas and exemplifythem using an automatically solved extended example.
We propose a specification language for the formalization of data types with par-tial or non-terminating operations as part of a rewrite-based logical frameworkfor inductive theorem proving. The language requires constructors for designat-ing data items and admits positive/negative conditional equations as axioms inspecifications. The (total algebra) semantics for such specifications is based onso-called data models. We present admissibility conditions that guarantee theunique existence of a distinguished data model with properties similar to thoseof the initial model of a usual equational specification. Since admissibility of aspecification requires confluence of the induced rewrite relation, we provide aneffectively testable confluence criterion which does not presuppose termination.
To prove difficult theorems in a mathematical field requires substantial know-ledge of that field. In this paper a frame-based knowledge representation formalismis presented, which supports a conceptual representation and to a large extent guar-antees the consistency of the built-up knowledge bases. We define a semantics ofthe representation by giving a translation into the underlaying logic.
The amount of user interaction is the prime cause of costs in interactiveprogram verification. This paper describes an internal analogy techniquethat reuses subproofs in the verification of state-based specifications. Itidentifies common patterns of subproofs and their justifications in orderto reuse these subproofs; thus significant savings on the number of userinteractions in a verification proof are achievable.
We present an empirical study of mathematical proofs by diagonalization, the aim istheir mechanization based on proof planning techniques. We show that these proofs canbe constructed according to a strategy that (i) finds an indexing relation, (ii) constructsa diagonal element, and (iii) makes the implicit contradiction of the diagonal elementexplicit. Moreover we suggest how diagonal elements can be represented.
Top-down and bottom-up theorem proving approaches have each specific ad-vantages and disadvantages. Bottom-up provers profit from strong redundancycontrol and suffer from the lack of goal-orientation, whereas top-down provers aregoal-oriented but have weak calculi when their proof lengths are considered. Inorder to integrate both approaches our method is to achieve cooperation betweena top-down and a bottom-up prover: The top-down prover generates subgoalclauses, then they are processed by a bottom-up prover. We discuss theoreticaspects of this methodology and we introduce techniques for a relevancy-basedfiltering of generated subgoal clauses. Experiments with a model eliminationand a superposition-based prover reveal the high potential of our cooperation approach.The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
We examine an approach for demand-driven cooperative theorem proving.We briefly point out the problems arising from the use of common success-driven cooperation methods, and we propose the application of our approachof requirement-based cooperative theorem proving. This approach allows for abetter orientation on current needs of provers in comparison with conventional co-operation concepts. We introduce an abstract framework for requirement-basedcooperation and describe two instantiations of it: Requirement-based exchangeof facts and sub-problem division and transfer via requests. Finally, we reporton experimental studies conducted in the areas superposition and unfailing com-pletion.The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
HOT is an automated higher-order theorem prover based on HTE, an extensional higher-order tableaux calculus (Kohlhase 95). The first part of the paper introduces a variant of the calculus which closely corresponds to the proof procedure implemented in HOT. The second part discusses HOT's design that can be characterized as a concurrent Blackboard architecture. We show the usefulness of the implementation by including benchmark results for over one hundred solved problems from logic and set theory.
Orderings on polynomial interpretations of operators represent a powerful technique for proving thetermination of rewriting systems. One of the main problems of polynomial orderings concerns thechoice of the right interpretation for a given rewriting system. It is very difficult to develop techniquesfor solving this problem. Here, we present three new heuristic approaches: (i) guidelines for dealingwith special classes of rewriting systems, (ii) an algorithm for choosing appropriate special polynomialsas well as (iii) an extension of the original polynomial ordering which supports the generation ofsuitable interpretations. All these heuristics will be applied to examples in order to illustrate theirpractical relevance.