In this paper we show that distributing the theorem proving task to several experts is a promising idea. We describe the team work method which allows the experts to compete for a while and then to cooperate. In the cooperation phase the best results derived in the competition phase are collected and the less important results are forgotten. We describe some useful experts and explain in detail how they work together. We establish fairness criteria and so prove the distributed system to be both, complete and correct. We have implementedour system and show by non-trivial examples that drastical time speed-ups are possible for a cooperating team of experts compared to the time needed by the best expert in the team.
Constructing an analogy between a known and already proven theorem(the base case) and another yet to be proven theorem (the target case) oftenamounts to finding the appropriate representation at which the base and thetarget are similar. This is a well-known fact in mathematics, and it was cor-roborated by our empirical study of a mathematical textbook, which showedthat a reformulation of the representation of a theorem and its proof is in-deed more often than not a necessary prerequisite for an analogical inference.Thus machine supported reformulation becomes an important component ofautomated analogy-driven theorem proving too.The reformulation component proposed in this paper is embedded into aproof plan methodology based on methods and meta-methods, where the latterare used to change and appropriately adapt the methods. A theorem and itsproof are both represented as a method and then reformulated by the set ofmetamethods presented in this paper.Our approach supports analogy-driven theorem proving at various levels ofabstraction and in principle makes it independent of the given and often acci-dental representation of the given theorems. Different methods can representfully instantiated proofs, subproofs, or general proof methods, and hence ourapproach also supports these three kinds of analogy respectively. By attachingappropriate justifications to meta-methods the analogical inference can oftenbe justified in the sense of Russell.This paper presents a model of analogy-driven proof plan construction andfocuses on empirically extracted meta-methods. It classifies and formally de-scribes these meta-methods and shows how to use them for an appropriatereformulation in automated analogy-driven theorem proving.
Following Buchberger's approach to computing a Gröbner basis of a poly-nomial ideal in polynomial rings, a completion procedure for finitely generatedright ideals in Z[H] is given, where H is an ordered monoid presented by a finite,convergent semi - Thue system (Sigma; T ). Taking a finite set F ' Z[H] we get a(possibly infinite) basis of the right ideal generated by F , such that using thisbasis we have unique normal forms for all p 2 Z[H] (especially the normal formis 0 in case p is an element of the right ideal generated by F ). As the orderingand multiplication on H need not be compatible, reduction has to be definedcarefully in order to make it Noetherian. Further we no longer have p Delta x ! p 0for p 2 Z[H]; x 2 H. Similar to Buchberger's s - polynomials, confluence criteriaare developed and a completion procedure is given. In case T = ; or (Sigma; T ) is aconvergent, 2 - monadic presentation of a group providing inverses of length 1 forthe generators or (Sigma; T ) is a convergent presentation of a commutative monoid ,termination can be shown. So in this cases finitely generated right ideals admitfinite Gröbner bases. The connection to the subgroup problem is discussed.
We investigate restricted termination and confluence properties of term rewritADing systems, in particular weak termination and innermost termination, and theirinterrelation. New criteria are provided which are sufficient for the equivalenceof innermost / weak termination and uniform termination of term rewriting sysADtems. These criteria provide interesting possibilities to infer completeness, i.e.termination plus confluence, from restricted termination and confluence properADties.Using these basic results we are also able to prove some new results aboutmodular termination of rewriting. In particular, we show that termination ismodular for some classes of innermost terminating and locally confluent termrewriting systems, namely for nonADoverlapping and even for overlay systems. Asan easy consequence this latter result also entails a simplified proof of the factthat completeness is a decomposable property of soADcalled constructor systems.Furthermore we show how to obtain similar results for even more general cases of(nonADdisjoint) combined systems with shared constructors and of certain hierarADchical combinations of systems with constructors. Interestingly, these modularityresults are obtained by means of a proof technique which itself constitutes a modADular approach.
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.
This case study examines in detail the theorems and proofs that are shownby analogy in a mathematical textbook on semigroups and automata, thatis widely used as an undergraduate textbook in theoretical computer scienceat German universities (P. Deussen, Halbgruppen und Automaten, Springer1971). The study shows the important role of restructuring a proof for findinganalogous subproofs, and of reformulating a proof for the analogical trans-formation. It also emphasizes the importance of the relevant assumptions ofa known proof, i.e., of those assumptions actually used in the proof. In thisdocument we show the theorems, the proof structure, the subproblems andthe proofs of subproblems and their analogues with the purpose to providean empirical test set of cases for automated analogy-driven theorem proving.Theorems and their proofs are given in natural language augmented by theusual set of mathematical symbols in the studied textbook. As a first step weencode the theorems in logic and show the actual restructuring. Secondly, wecode the proofs in a Natural Deduction calculus such that a formal analysisbecomes possible and mention reformulations that are necessary in order toreveal the analogy.
We develop an order-sorted higher-order calculus suitable forautomatic theorem proving applications by extending the extensional simplytyped lambda calculus with a higher-order ordered sort concept and constantoverloading. Huet's well-known techniques for unifying simply typed lambdaterms are generalized to arrive at a complete transformation-based unificationalgorithm for this sorted calculus. Consideration of an order-sorted logicwith functional base sorts and arbitrary term declarations was originallyproposed by the second author in a 1991 paper; we give here a correctedcalculus which supports constant rather than arbitrary term declarations, aswell as a corrected unification algorithm, and prove in this setting resultscorresponding to those claimed there.
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.
This report presents a methodology to guide equational reasoningin a goal directed way. Suggested by rippling methods developed inthe field of inductive theorem proving we use attributes of terms andheuristics to determine bridge lemmas, i.e. lemmas which have tobe used during the proof of the theorem. Once we have found sucha bridge lemma we use the techniques of difference unification andrippling to enable its use.
This paper develops a sound and complete transformation-based algorithm forunification in an extensional order-sorted combinatory logic supporting constantoverloading and a higher-order sort concept. Appropriate notions of order-sortedweak equality and extensionality - reflecting order-sorted fij-equality in thecorresponding lambda calculus given by Johann and Kohlhase - are defined, andthe typed combinator-based higher-order unification techniques of Dougherty aremodified to accommodate unification with respect to the theory they generate. Thealgorithm presented here can thus be viewed as a combinatory logic counterpartto that of Johann and Kohlhase, as well as a refinement of that of Dougherty, andprovides evidence that combinatory logic is well-suited to serve as a framework forincorporating order-sorted higher-order reasoning into deduction systems aimingto capitalize on both the expressiveness of extensional higher-order logic and theefficiency of order-sorted calculi.