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 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.
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)
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.
The introduction of sorts to first-order automated deduction has broughtgreater conciseness of representation and a considerable gain in efficiency byreducing the search space. It is therefore promising to treat sorts in higherorder theorem proving as well.In this paper we present a generalization of Huet's Constrained Resolutionto an order-sorted type theory SigmaT with term declarations. This system buildscertain taxonomic axioms into the unification and conducts reasoning withthem in a controlled way. We make this notion precise by giving a relativizationoperator that totally and faithfully encodes SigmaT into simple type theory.
This paper introduces a multi-valued variant of higher-order resolution and provesit correct and complete with respect to a natural multi-valued variant of Henkin'sgeneral model semantics. This resolution method is parametric in the number of truthvalues as well as in the particular choice of the set of connectives (given by arbitrarytruth tables) and even substitutional quantifiers. In the course of the completenessproof we establish a model existence theorem for this logical system. The workreported in this paper provides a basis for developing higher-order mechanizationsfor many non-classical logics.
Coloring terms (rippling) is a technique developed for inductive theorem proving which uses syntactic differences of terms to guide the proof search. Annotations (colors) to terms are used to maintain this information. This technique has several advantages, e.g. it is highly goal oriented and involves little search. In this paper we give a general formalization of coloring terms in a higher-order setting. We introduce a simply-typed lambda calculus with color annotations and present an appropriate (pre-)unification algorithm. Our work is a formal basis to the implementation of rippling in a higher-order setting which is required e.g. in case of middle-out reasoning. Another application is in the construction of natural language semantics, where the color annotations rule out linguistically invalid readings that are possible using standard higher-order unification.
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.