### Refine

#### Language

- English (4) (remove)

In 1978, Klop demonstrated that a rewrite system constructed by adding the untyped lambda calculus, which has the Church-Rosser property, to a Church-Rosser first-order algebraic rewrite system may not be Church-Rosser. In contrast, Breazu-Tannen recently showed that argumenting any Church-Rosser first-order algebraic rewrite system with the simply-typed lambda calculus results in a Church-Rosser rewrite system. In addition, Breazu-Tannen and Gallier have shown that the second-order polymorphic lambda calculus can be added to such rewrite systems without compromising the Church-Rosser property (for terms which can be provably typed). There are other systems for which a Church-Rosser result would be desirable, among them being X^t+SP+FIX, the simply-typed lambda calculus extended with surjective pairing and fixed points. This paper will show that Klop's untyped counterexample can be lifted to a typed system to demonstrate that X^t+SP+FIX is not Church-Rosser.

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)