### Refine

#### Keywords

- resolution (3)
- theorem proving (3)
- Partial functions (2)
- analogy (2)
- conservative extension (2)
- consistency (2)
- frames (2)
- many-valued logic (2)
- problem formulation (2)
- tactics (2)

We present a mathematical knowledge base containing the factual know-ledge of the first of three parts of a textbook on semi-groups and automata,namely "P. Deussen: Halbgruppen und Automaten". Like almost all math-ematical textbooks this textbook is not self-contained, but there are somealgebraic and set-theoretical concepts not being explained. These concepts areadded to the knowledge base. Furthermore there is knowledge about the nat-ural numbers, which is formalized following the first paragraph of "E. Landau:Grundlagen der Analysis".The data base is written in a sorted higher-order logic, a variant of POST ,the working language of the proof development environment OmegaGamma mkrp. We dis-tinguish three different types of knowledge: axioms, definitions, and theorems.Up to now, there are only 2 axioms (natural numbers and cardinality), 149definitions (like that for a semi-group), and 165 theorems. The consistency ofsuch knowledge bases cannot be proved in general, but inconsistencies may beimported only by the axioms. Definitions and theorems should not lead to anyinconsistency since definitions form conservative extensions and theorems areproved to be consequences.

Even though it is not very often admitted, partial functionsdo play a significant role in many practical applications of deduction sys-tems. Kleene has already given a semantic account of partial functionsusing a three-valued logic decades ago, but there has not been a satisfact-ory mechanization. Recent years have seen a thorough investigation ofthe framework of many-valued truth-functional logics. However, strongKleene logic, where quantification is restricted and therefore not truth-functional, does not fit the framework directly. We solve this problemby applying recent methods from sorted logics. This paper presents atableau calculus that combines the proper treatment of partial functionswith the efficiency of sorted calculi.

Deduktionssysteme
(1999)

A lot of the human ability to prove hard mathematical theorems can be ascribedto a problem-specific problem solving know-how. Such knowledge is intrinsicallyincomplete. In order to prove related problems human mathematicians, however,can go beyond the acquired knowledge by adapting their know-how to new relatedproblems. These two aspects, having rich experience and extending it by need, can besimulated in a proof planning framework: the problem-specific reasoning knowledge isrepresented in form of declarative planning operators, called methods; since these aredeclarative, they can be mechanically adapted to new situations by so-called meta-methods. In this contribution we apply this framework to two prominent proofs intheorem proving, first, we present methods for proving the ground completeness ofbinary resolution, which essentially correspond to key lemmata, and then, we showhow these methods can be reused for the proof of the ground completeness of lockresolution.

A straightforward formulation of a mathematical problem is mostly not ad-equate for resolution theorem proving. We present a method to optimize suchformulations by exploiting the variability of first-order logic. The optimizingtransformation is described as logic morphisms, whose operationalizations aretactics. The different behaviour of a resolution theorem prover for the sourceand target formulations is demonstrated by several examples. It is shown howtactical and resolution-style theorem proving can be combined.

We transform a user-friendly formulation of aproblem to a machine-friendly one exploiting the variabilityof first-order logic to express facts. The usefulness of tacticsto improve the presentation is shown with several examples.In particular it is shown how tactical and resolution theoremproving can be combined.

Typical examples, that is, examples that are representative for a particular situationor concept, play an important role in human knowledge representation and reasoning.In real life situations more often than not, instead of a lengthy abstract characteriza-tion, a typical example is used to describe the situation. This well-known observationhas been the motivation for various investigations in experimental psychology, whichalso motivate our formal characterization of typical examples, based on a partial orderfor their typicality. Reasoning by typical examples is then developed as a special caseof analogical reasoning using the semantic information contained in the correspondingconcept structures. We derive new inference rules by replacing the explicit informa-tion about connections and similarity, which are normally used to formalize analogicalinference rules, by information about the relationship to typical examples. Using theseinference rules analogical reasoning proceeds by checking a related typical example,this is a form of reasoning based on semantic information from cases.

Typical instances, that is, instances that are representative for a particular situ-ation or concept, play an important role in human knowledge representationand reasoning, in particular in analogical reasoning. This wellADknown obser-vation has been a motivation for investigations in cognitive psychology whichprovide a basis for our characterization of typical instances within conceptstructures and for a new inference rule for justified analogical reasoning withtypical instances. In a nutshell this paper suggests to augment the proposi-tional knowledge representation system by a non-propositional part consistingof concept structures which may have directly represented instances as ele-ments. The traditional reasoning system is extended by a rule for justifiedanalogical inference with typical instances using information extracted fromboth knowledge representation subsystems.

This paper addresses two modi of analogical reasoning. Thefirst modus is based on the explicit representation of the justificationfor the analogical inference. The second modus is based on the repre-sentation of typical instances by concept structures. The two kinds ofanalogical inferences rely on different forms of relevance knowledge thatcause non-monotonicity. While the uncertainty and non-monotonicity ofanalogical inferences is not questioned, a semantic characterization ofanalogical reasoning has not been given yet. We introduce a minimalmodel semantics for analogical inference with typical instances.

The hallmark of traditional Artificial Intelligence (AI) research is the symbolic representation and processing of knowledge. This is in sharp contrast to many forms of human reasoning, which to an extraordinary extent, rely on cases and (typical) examples. Although these examples could themselves be encoded into logic, this raises the problem of restricting the corresponding model classes to include only the intended models.There are, however, more compelling reasons to argue for a hybrid representa-tion based on assertions as well as examples. The problems of adequacy, availability of information, compactness of representation, processing complexity, and last but not least, results from the psychology of human reasoning, all point to the same conclusion: Common sense reasoning requires different knowledge sources and hybrid reasoning principles that combine symbolic as well as semantic-based inference. In this paper we address the problem of integrating semantic representations of examples into automateddeduction systems. The main contribution is a formal framework for combining sentential with direct representations. The framework consists of a hybrid knowledge base, made up of logical formulae on the one hand and direct representations of examples on the other, and of a hybrid reasoning method based on the resolution calculus. The resulting hybrid resolution calculus is shown to be sound and complete.

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.

The semantics of everyday language and the semanticsof its naive translation into classical first-order language consider-ably differ. An important discrepancy that is addressed in this paperis about the implicit assumption what exists. For instance, in thecase of universal quantification natural language uses restrictions andpresupposes that these restrictions are non-empty, while in classi-cal logic it is only assumed that the whole universe is non-empty.On the other hand, all constants mentioned in classical logic arepresupposed to exist, while it makes no problems to speak about hy-pothetical objects in everyday language. These problems have beendiscussed in philosophical logic and some adequate many-valuedlogics were developed to model these phenomena much better thanclassical first-order logic can do. An adequate calculus, however, hasnot yet been given. Recent years have seen a thorough investigationof the framework of many-valued truth-functional logics. UnfortuADnately, restricted quantifications are not truth-functional, hence theydo not fit the framework directly. We solve this problem by applyingrecent methods from sorted logics.

Even though it is not very often admitted, partial functionsdo play a significant role in many practical applications of deduction sys-tems. Kleene has already given a semantic account of partial functionsusing a three-valued logic decades ago. This approach allows rejectingcertain unwanted formulae as faulty, which the simpler two-valued onesaccept. We have developed resolution and tableau calculi for automatedtheorem proving that take the restrictions of the three-valued logic intoaccount, which however have the severe drawback that existing theo-rem provers cannot directly be adapted to the technique. Even recentlyimplemented calculi for many-valued logics are not well-suited, since inthose the quantification does not exclude the undefined element. In thiswork we show, that it is possible to enhance a two-valued theorem proverby a simple strategy so that it can be used to generate proofs for the the-orems of the three-valued setting. By this we are able to use an existingtheorem prover for a large fragment of the language.

Even though it is not very often admitted, partial functions do play asignificant role in many practical applications of deduction systems. Kleenehas already given a semantic account of partial functions using three-valuedlogic decades ago, but there has not been a satisfactory mechanization. Recentyears have seen a thorough investigation of the framework of many-valuedtruth-functional logics. However, strong Kleene logic, where quantificationis restricted and therefore not truth-functional, does not fit the frameworkdirectly. We solve this problem by applying recent methods from sorted logics.This paper presents a resolution calculus that combines the proper treatmentof partial functions with the efficiency of sorted calculi.

In this paper we generalize the notion of method for proofplanning. While we adopt the general structure of methods introducedby Alan Bundy, we make an essential advancement in that we strictlyseparate the declarative knowledge from the procedural knowledge. Thischange of paradigm not only leads to representations easier to under-stand, it also enables modeling the important activity of formulatingmeta-methods, that is, operators that adapt the declarative part of exist-ing methods to suit novel situations. Thus this change of representationleads to a considerably strengthened planning mechanism.After presenting our declarative approach towards methods we describethe basic proof planning process with these. Then we define the notion ofmeta-method, provide an overview of practical examples and illustratehow meta-methods can be integrated into the planning process.

Die Beweisentwicklungsumgebung Omega-Mkrp soll Mathematiker bei einer ihrer Haupttätigkeiten, nämlich dem Beweisen mathematischer Theoreme unterstützen. Diese Unterstützung muß so komfortabel sein, daß die Beweise mit vertretbarem Aufwand formal durchgeführt werden können und daß die Korrektheit der so erzeugten Beweise durch das System sichergestellt wird. Ein solches System wird sich nur dann wirklich durchsetzen, wenn die rechnergestützte Suche nach formalen Beweisen weniger aufwendig und leichter ist, als ohne das System. Um dies zu erreichen, ergeben sich verschiedene Anforderungen an eine solche Entwicklungsumgebung, die wir im einzelnen beschreiben. Diese betreffen insbesondere die Ausdruckskraft der verwendeten Objektsprache, die Möglichkeit, abstrakt über Beweispläne zu reden, die am Menschen orientierte Präsentation der gefundenen Beweise, aber auch die effiziente Unterstützung beim Füllen von Beweislücken. Das im folgenden vorgestellte Omega-Mkrp-System ist eine Synthese der Ansätze des vollautomatischen, des interaktiven und des planbasierten Beweisens und versucht erstmalig die Ergebnisse dieser drei Forschungsrichtungen in einem System zu vereinigen. Dieser Artikel soll eine Übersicht über unsere Arbeit an diesem System geben.

Extending the planADbased paradigm for auto-mated theorem proving, we developed in previ-ous work a declarative approach towards rep-resenting methods in a proof planning frame-work to support their mechanical modification.This paper presents a detailed study of a classof particular methods, embodying variations ofa mathematical technique called diagonaliza-tion. The purpose of this paper is mainly two-fold. First we demonstrate that typical math-ematical methods can be represented in ourframework in a natural way. Second we illus-trate our philosophy of proof planning: besidesplanning with a fixed repertoire of methods,metaADmethods create new methods by modify-ing existing ones. With the help of three differ-ent diagonalization problems we present an ex-ample trace protocol of the evolution of meth-ods: an initial method is extracted from a par-ticular successful proof. This initial method isthen reformulated for the subsequent problems,and more general methods can be obtained byabstracting existing methods. Finally we comeup with a fairly abstract method capable ofdealing with all the three problems, since it cap-tures the very key idea of diagonalization.

This paper describes a declarative approach forencoding the plan operators in proof planning,the so-called methods. The notion of methodevolves from the much studied concept of a tac-tic and was first used by A. Bundy. Signific-ant deductive power has been achieved withthe planning approach towards automated de-duction; however, the procedural character ofthe tactic part of methods hinders mechanicalmodification. Although the strength of a proofplanning system largely depends on powerfulgeneral procedures which solve a large class ofproblems, mechanical or even automated modi-fication of methods is necessary, since methodsdesigned for a specific type of problems willnever be general enough. After introducing thegeneral framework, we exemplify the mechan-ical modification of methods via a particularmeta-method which modifies methods by trans-forming connectives to quantifiers.

Planverfahren
(1999)

We show how to buildup mathematical knowledge bases usingframes. We distinguish three differenttypes of knowledge: axioms, definitions(for introducing concepts like "set" or"group") and theorems (for relating theconcepts). The consistency of such know-ledge bases cannot be proved in gen-eral, but we can restrict the possibilit-ies where inconsistencies may be impor-ted to very few cases, namely to the oc-currence of axioms. Definitions and the-orems should not lead to any inconsisten-cies because definitions form conservativeextensions and theorems are proved to beconsequences.

In most cases higher-order logic is based on the (gamma)-calculus in order to avoid the infinite set of so-called comprehension axioms. However, there is a price to be paid, namelyan undecidable unification algorithm. If we do not use the(gamma) - calculus, but translate higher-order expressions intofirst-order expressions by standard translation techniques, we haveto translate the infinite set of comprehension axioms, too. Ofcourse, in general this is not practicable. Therefore such anapproach requires some restrictions such as the choice of thenecessary axioms by a human user or the restriction to certainproblem classes. This paper will show how the infinite class ofcomprehension axioms can be represented by a finite subclass,so that an automatic translation of finite higher-order prob-lems into finite first-order problems is possible. This trans-lation is sound and complete with respect to a Henkin-stylegeneral model semantics.

Extending existing calculi by sorts is astrong means for improving the deductive power offirst-order theorem provers. Since many mathemat-ical facts can be more easily expressed in higher-orderlogic - aside the greater power of higher-order logicin principle - , it is desirable to transfer the advant-ages of sorts in the first-order case to the higher-ordercase. One possible method for automating higher-order logic is the translation of problem formulationsinto first-order logic and the usage of first-order the-orem provers. For a certain class of problems thismethod can compete with proving theorems directlyin higher-order logic as for instance with the TPStheorem prover of Peter Andrews or with the Nuprlproof development environment of Robert Constable.There are translations from unsorted higher-order lo-gic based on Church's simple theory of types intomany-sorted first-order logic, which are sound andcomplete with respect to a Henkin-style general mod-els semantics. In this paper we extend correspond-ing translations to translations of order-sorted higher-order logic into order-sorted first-order logic, thus weare able to utilize corresponding first-order theoremprover for proving higher-order theorems. We do notuse any (lambda)-expressions, therefore we have to add so-called comprehension axioms, which a priori makethe procedure well-suited only for essentially first-order theorems. However, in practical applicationsof mathematics many theorems are essentially first-order and as it seems to be the case, the comprehen-sion axioms can be mastered too.

In this paper we are interested in using a firstorder theorem prover to prove theorems thatare formulated in some higher order logic. Tothis end we present translations of higher or-der logics into first order logic with flat sortsand equality and give a sufficient criterion forthe soundness of these translations. In addi-tion translations are introduced that are soundand complete with respect to L. Henkin's gen-eral model semantics. Our higher order logicsare based on a restricted type structure in thesense of A. Church, they have typed functionsymbols and predicate symbols, but no sorts.

An important research problem is the incorporation of "declarative" knowledge into an automated theorem prover that can be utilized in the search for a proof. An interesting pro-posal in this direction is Alan Bundy's approach of using explicit proof plans that encapsulatethe general form of a proof and is instantiated into a particular proof for the case at hand. Wegive some examples that show how a "declarative" highlevel description of a proof can be usedto find proofs of apparently "similiar" theorems by analogy. This "analogical" information isused to select the appropriate axioms from the database so that the theorem can be proved.This information is also used to adjust some options of a resolution theorem prover. In orderto get a powerful tool it is necessary to develop an epistemologically appropriate language todescribe proofs, for which a large set of examples should be used as a testbed. We presentsome ideas in this direction.

To prove difficult theorems in a mathematical field requires substantial know-ledge of that field. In this thesis a frame-based knowledge representation formal-ism including higher-order sorted logic is presented, which supports a conceptualrepresentation and to a large extent guarantees the consistency of the built-upknowledge bases. In order to operationalize this knowledge, for instance, in anautomated theorem proving system, a class of sound morphisms from higher-orderinto first-order logic is given, in addition a sound and complete translation ispresented. The translations are bijective and hence compatible with a later proofpresentation.In order to prove certain theorems the comprehension axioms are necessary,(but difficult to handle in an automated system); such theorems are called trulyhigher-order. Many apparently higher-order theorems (i.e. theorems that arestated in higher-order syntax) however are essentially first-order in the sense thatthey can be proved without the comprehension axioms: for proving these theoremsthe translation technique as presented in this thesis is well-suited.

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.

This report presents the main ideas underlyingtheOmegaGamma mkrp-system, an environmentfor the development of mathematical proofs. The motivation for the development ofthis system comes from our extensive experience with traditional first-order theoremprovers and aims to overcome some of their shortcomings. After comparing the benefitsand drawbacks of existing systems, we propose a system architecture that combinesthe positive features of different types of theorem-proving systems, most notably theadvantages of human-oriented systems based on methods (our version of tactics) andthe deductive strength of traditional automated theorem provers.In OmegaGamma mkrp a user first states a problem to be solved in a typed and sorted higher-order language (called POST ) and then applies natural deduction inference rules inorder to prove it. He can also insert a mathematical fact from an integrated data-base into the current partial proof, he can apply a domain-specific problem-solvingmethod, or he can call an integrated automated theorem prover to solve a subprob-lem. The user can also pass the control to a planning component that supports andpartially automates his long-range planning of a proof. Toward the important goal ofuser-friendliness, machine-generated proofs are transformed in several steps into muchshorter, better-structured proofs that are finally translated into natural language.This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 314 (D2, D3)

This paper concerns a knowledge structure called method , within a compu-tational model for human oriented deduction. With human oriented theoremproving cast as an interleaving process of planning and verification, the body ofall methods reflects the reasoning repertoire of a reasoning system. While weadopt the general structure of methods introduced by Alan Bundy, we make anessential advancement in that we strictly separate the declarative knowledgefrom the procedural knowledge. This is achieved by postulating some stand-ard types of knowledge we have identified, such as inference rules, assertions,and proof schemata, together with corresponding knowledge interpreters. Ourapproach in effect changes the way deductive knowledge is encoded: A newcompound declarative knowledge structure, the proof schema, takes the placeof complicated procedures for modeling specific proof strategies. This change ofparadigm not only leads to representations easier to understand, it also enablesus modeling the even more important activity of formulating meta-methods,that is, operators that adapt existing methods to suit novel situations. In thispaper, we first introduce briefly the general framework for describing methods.Then we turn to several types of knowledge with their interpreters. Finally,we briefly illustrate some meta-methods.

In this article we formally describe a declarative approach for encoding plan operatorsin proof planning, the so-called methods. The notion of method evolves from the much studiedconcept tactic and was first used by Bundy. While significant deductive power has been achievedwith the planning approach towards automated deduction, the procedural character of the tacticpart of methods, however, hinders mechanical modification. Although the strength of a proofplanning system largely depends on powerful general procedures which solve a large class ofproblems, mechanical or even automated modification of methods is nevertheless necessary forat least two reasons. Firstly methods designed for a specific type of problem will never begeneral enough. For instance, it is very difficult to encode a general method which solves allproblems a human mathematician might intuitively consider as a case of homomorphy. Secondlythe cognitive ability of adapting existing methods to suit novel situations is a fundamentalpart of human mathematical competence. We believe it is extremely valuable to accountcomputationally for this kind of reasoning.The main part of this article is devoted to a declarative language for encoding methods,composed of a tactic and a specification. The major feature of our approach is that the tacticpart of a method is split into a declarative and a procedural part in order to enable a tractableadaption of methods. The applicability of a method in a planning situation is formulatedin the specification, essentially consisting of an object level formula schema and a meta-levelformula of a declarative constraint language. After setting up our general framework, wemainly concentrate on this constraint language. Furthermore we illustrate how our methodscan be used in a Strips-like planning framework. Finally we briefly illustrate the mechanicalmodification of declaratively encoded methods by so-called meta-methods.

The reasoning power of human-oriented plan-based reasoning systems is primarilyderived from their domain-specific problem solving knowledge. Such knowledge is, how-ever, intrinsically incomplete. In order to model the human ability of adapting existingmethods to new situations we present in this work a declarative approach for represent-ing methods, which can be adapted by so-called meta-methods. Since apparently thesuccess of this approach relies on the existence of general and strong meta-methods,we describe several meta-methods of general interest in detail by presenting the prob-lem solving process of two familiar classes of mathematical problems. These examplesshould illustrate our philosophy of proof planning as well: besides planning with thecurrent repertoire of methods, the repertoire of methods evolves with experience inthat new ones are created by meta-methods which modify existing ones.