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.
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 goal of this paper is to lay a logical foundation for discourse theories by providing analgebraic foundation of compositional formalisms for discourse semantics as an analogon tothe simply typed (lambda)-calculus. Just as that can be specialized to type theory by simply providinga special type for truth values and postulating the quantifiers and connectives as constantswith fixed semantics, the proposed dynamic (lambda)-calculus DLC can be specialized to (lambda)-DRT byessentially the same measures, yielding a much more principled and modular treatment of(lambda)-DRT than before; DLC is also expected to eventually provide a conceptually simple basisfor studying higher-order unification for compositional discourse theories.Over the past few years, there have been a series of attempts [Zee89, GS90, EK95, Mus96,KKP96, Kus96] to combine the Montagovian type theoretic framework [Mon74] with dynamicapproaches, such as DRT [Kam81]. The motivation for these developments is to obtain a generallogical framework for discourse semantics that combines compositionality and dynamic binding.Let us look at an example of compositional semantics construction in (lambda)-DRT which is one ofthe above formalisms [KKP96, Kus96]. By the use of fi-reduction we arrive at a first-order DRTrepresentation of the sentence A i man sleeps. (i denoting an index for anaphoric binding.)
This paper shows how a new approach to theorem provingby analogy is applicable to real maths problems. This approach worksat the level of proof-plans and employs reformulation that goes beyondsymbol mapping. The Heine-Borel theorem is a widely known result inmathematics. It is usually stated in R 1 and similar versions are also truein R 2 , in topology, and metric spaces. Its analogical transfer was proposedas a challenge example and could not be solved by previous approachesto theorem proving by analogy. We use a proof-plan of the Heine-Boreltheorem in R 1 as a guide in automatically producing a proof-plan of theHeine-Borel theorem in R 2 by analogy-driven proof-plan construction.
This paper addresses a model of analogy-driven theorem proving that is more general and cognitively more adequate than previous approaches. The model works at the level ofproof-plans. More precisely, we consider analogy as a control strategy in proof planning that employs a source proof-plan to guide the construction of a proof-plan for the target problem. Our approach includes a reformulation of the source proof-plan. This is in accordance with the well known fact that constructing ananalogy in maths often amounts to first finding the appropriate representation which brings out the similarity of two problems, i.e., finding the right concepts and the right level of abstraction. Several well known theorems were processed by our analogy-driven proof-plan construction that could not be proven analogically by previous approaches.