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.
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.
We provide an overview of UNICOM, an inductive theorem prover for equational logic which isbased on refined rewriting and completion techniques. The architecture of the system as well as itsfunctionality are described. Moreover, an insight into the most important aspects of the internalproof process is provided. This knowledge about how the central inductive proof componentof the system essentially works is crucial for human users who want to solve non-trivial prooftasks with UNICOM and thoroughly analyse potential failures. The presentation is focussedon practical aspects of understanding and using UNICOM. A brief but complete description ofthe command interface, an installation guide, an example session, a detailed extended exampleillustrating various special features and a collection of successfully handled examples are alsoincluded.
The well-known and powerful proof principle by well-founded induction says that for verifying \(\forall x : P (x)\) for some property \(P\) it suffices to show \(\forall x : [[\forall y < x :P (y)] \Rightarrow P (x)] \) , provided \(<\) is a well-founded partial ordering on the domainof interest. Here we investigate a more general formulation of this proof principlewhich allows for a kind of parameterized partial orderings \(<_x\) which naturallyarises in some cases. More precisely, we develop conditions under which theparameterized proof principle \(\forall x : [[\forall y <_x x : P (y)] \Rightarrow P (x)]\) is sound in thesense that \(\forall x : [[\forall y <_x x : P (y)] \Rightarrow P (x)] \Rightarrow \forall x : P (x)\) holds, and givecounterexamples demonstrating that these conditions are indeed essential.
We investigate one of the classical problems of the theory ofterm rewriting, namely termination. We present an ordering for compar-ing higher-order terms that can be utilized for testing termination anddecreasingness of higher-order conditional term rewriting systems. Theordering relies on a first-order interpretation of higher-order terms anda suitable extension of the RPO.
We present a way to describe Reason Maintenance Systems using the sameformalism for justification based as well as for assumption based approaches.This formalism uses labelled formulae and thus is a special case of Gabbay'slabelled deductive systems. Since our approach is logic based, we are able toget a semantics oriented description of the systems in question.Instead of restricting ourselves to e.g. propositional Horn formulae, as wasdone in the past, we admit arbitrary logics. This enables us to characterizesystems as a whole, including both the reason maintenance component and theproblem solver, nevertheless maintaining a separation between the basic logicand the part that describes the label propagation. The possibility to freely varythe basic logic enables us to not only describe various existing systems, but canhelp in the design of completely new ones.We also show, that it is possible to implement systems based directly on ourlabelled logic and plead for "incremental calculi" crafted to attack undecidablelogics.Furthermore it is shown that the same approach can be used to handledefault reasoning, if the propositional labels are upgraded to first order.
We will answer a question posed in [DJK91], and will show that Huet's completion algorithm [Hu81] becomes incomplete, i.e. it may generate a term rewriting system that is not confluent, if it is modified in a way that the reduction ordering used for completion can be changed during completion provided that the new ordering is compatible with the actual rules. In particular, we will show that this problem may not only arise if the modified completion algorithm does not terminate: Even if the algorithm terminates without failure, the generated finite noetherian term rewriting system may be non-confluent. Most existing implementations of the Knuth-Bendix algorithm provide the user with help in choosing a reduction ordering: If an unorientable equation is encountered, then the user has many options, especially, the one to orient the equation manually. The integration of this feature is based on the widespread assumption that, if equations are oriented by hand during completion and the completion process terminates with success, then the generated finite system is a maybe non terminating but locally confluent system (see e.g. [KZ89]). Our examples will show that this assumption is not true.
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.
This paper presents a new kind of abstraction, which has been developed for the purpose of proofplanning. The basic idea of this paper is to abstract a given theorem and to find an abstractproof of it. Once an abstract proof has been found, this proof has to be refined to a real proofof the original theorem. We present a goal oriented abstraction for the purpose of equality proofplanning, which is parameterized by common parts of the left- and right-hand sides of the givenequality. Therefore, this abstraction technique provides an abstract equality problem which ismore adequate than those generated by the abstractions known so far. The presented abstractionalso supports the heuristic search process based on the difference reduction paradigm. We give aformal definition of the abstract space including the objects and their manipulation. Furthermore,we prove some properties in order to allow an efficient implementation of the presented abstraction.