Examples in the history of Automated Theorem Proving are given, in order to show that even a seemingly ‘mechanical’ activity, such as deductive inference drawing, involves special cultural features and tacit knowledge. Mechanisation of reasoning is thus regarded as a complex undertaking in ‘cultural pruning’ of human-oriented reasoning. Sociological counterparts of this passage from human- to machine-oriented reasoning are discussed, by focusing on problems of man-machine interaction in the area of computer-assisted proof processing.

Formal verification involves the use of logical and computational methods to establish claims that are expressed in precise mathematical terms. These can include ordinary mathematical theorems, as well as claims that pieces of hardware or software, network protocols, and mechanical and hybrid systems meet their specifications. In practice, there is not a sharp distinction between verifying a piece of mathematics and verifying the correctness of a system: formal verification requires describing hardware and software systems in mathematical terms, at which point (...) establishing claims as to their correctness becomes a form of theorem proving. Conversely, the proof of a mathematical theorem may require a lengthy computation, in which case verifying the truth of the theorem requires verifying that the computation does what it is supposed to do. The gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof, and twentieth-century developments in logic show most if not all conventional proof methods can be reduced to a small set of axioms and rules in any of a number of foundational systems. With this reduction, there are two ways that a computer can help establish a claim: it can help find a proof in the first place, and it can help verify that a purported proof is correct. Automated theorem proving focuses on the “finding” aspect. Resolution theorem provers, tableau theorem provers, fast satisfiability solvers, and so on provide means of establishing the validity of formulas in propositional and first-order logic. Other systems provide search procedures and decision procedures for specific languages and domains, such as linear or nonlinear expressions over the integers or the real numbers. Architectures like SMT combine domain-general search methods with domain-specific procedures. Computer algebra systems and specialized mathematical software packages provide means of carrying out mathematical computations, establishing mathematical bounds, or finding mathematical objects. A calculation can be viewed as a proof as well, and these systems, too, help establish mathematical claims. Automated reasoning systems strive for power and efficiency, often at the expense of guaranteed soundness. Such systems can have bugs, and it can be difficult to ensure that the results they deliver are correct. In contrast, interactive theorem proving focuses on the “verification” aspect of theorem proving, requiring that every claim is supported by a proof in a suitable axiomatic foundation. This sets a very high standard: every rule of inference and every step of a calculation has to be justified by appealing to prior definitions and theorems, all the way down to basic axioms and rules. In fact, most such systems provide fully elaborated “proof objects” that can be communicated to other systems and checked independently. Constructing such proofs typically requires much more input and interaction from users, but it allows us to obtain deeper and more complex proofs. The Lean Theorem Prover aims to bridge the gap between interactive and automated theorem proving, by situating automated tools and methods in a framework that supports user interaction and the construction of fully specified axiomatic proofs. The goal is to support both mathematical reasoning and reasoning about complex systems, and to verify claims in both domains. (shrink)

Lean is a new open source theorem prover being developed at Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon University, with a small trusted kernel based on dependent type theory. It aims to bridge the gap between interactive and automated theorem proving, by situating automated tools and methods in a framework that supports user interaction and the construction of fully specified axiomatic proofs. Lean is an ongoing and long-term effort, but it already provides many useful components, integrated (...) development environments, and a rich API which can be used to embed it into other systems. It is currently being used to formalize category theory, homotopy type theory, and abstract algebra. We describe the project goals, system architecture, and main features, and we discuss applications and continuing work. (shrink)

The history of building automated theorem provers for higher-order logic is almost as old as the field of deduction systems itself. The first successful attempts to mechanize and implement higher-order logic were those of Huet [13] and Jensen and Pietrzykowski [17]. They combine the resolution principle for higher-order logic (first studied in [1]) with higher-order unification. The unification problem in typed λ-calculi is much more complex than that for first-order terms, since it has to take the theory of (...) αβη-equality into account. As a consequence, the higher-order unification problem is undecidable and sets of solutions need not even always have most general elements that represent them. Thus the mentioned calculi for higher-order logic have take special measures to circumvent the problems posed by the theoretical complexity of higher-order unification. In this paper, we will exemplify the methods and proof- and model-theoretic tools needed for extending first-order automated theorem proving to higherorder logic. For the sake of simplicity take the tableau method as a basis (for a general introduction to first-order tableaux see part I.1) and discuss the higherorder tableau calculi HT and HTE first presented in [19]. The methods in this paper also apply to higher-order resolution calculi [1, 13, 6] or the higher-order matings method of Peter [3], which extend their first-order counterparts in much the same way. Since higher-order calculi cannot be complete for the standard semantics by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem [11], only the weaker notion of Henkin models [12] leads to a meaningful notion of completeness in higher-order logic. It turns out that the calculi in [1, 13, 3, 19] are not Henkin-complete, since they fail to capture the extensionality principles of higher-order logic. We will characterize the deductive power of our calculus HT (which is roughly equivalent to these calculi) by the semantics of functional Σ-models. To arrive at a calculus that is complete with respect to Henkin models, we build on ideas from [6] and augment HT with tableau construction rules that use the extensionality principles in a goal-oriented way.. (shrink)

This paper is concerned with decision proceedures for the 0-valued ukasiewicz logics,. It is shown how linear algebra can be used to construct an automated theorem checker. Two decision proceedures are described which depend on a linear programming package. An algorithm is given for the verification of consequence relations in, and a connection is made between theorem checking in two-valued logic and theorem checking in which implies that determing of a -free formula whether it takes the (...) value one is NP-complete problem. (shrink)

Computers may help us to better understand (not just verify) arguments. In this article we defend this claim by showcasing the application of a new, computer-assisted interpretive method to an exemplary natural-language ar- gument with strong ties to metaphysics and religion: E. J. Lowe’s modern variant of St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God. Our new method, which we call computational hermeneutics, has been particularly conceived for use in interactive-automated proof assistants. It aims at shedding light (...) on the meanings of words and sentences by framing their inferential role in a given argument. By employing automated theorem reasoning technology within interactive proof assistants, we are able to drastically reduce (by several orders of magnitude) the time needed to test the logical validity of an argu- ment’s formalization. As a result, a new approach to logical analysis, inspired by Donald Davidson’s account of radical interpretation, has been enabled. In computational hermeneutics, the utilization of automated reasoning tools ef- fectively boosts our capacity to expose the assumptions we indirectly commit ourselves to every time we engage in rational argumentation and it fosters the explicitation and revision of our concepts and commitments. (shrink)

Accessing knowledge of a single knowledge source with different client applications often requires the help of mediator systems as middleware components. In the domain of theorem proving large efforts have been made to formalize knowledge for mathematics and verification issues, and to structure it in databases. But these databases are either specialized for a single client, or if the knowledge is stored in a general database, the services this database can provide are usually limited and hard to adjust (...) for a particular theorem prover. Only recently there have been initiatives to flexibly connect existing theorem proving systems into networked environments that contain large knowledge bases. An intermediate layer containing both, search and proving functionality can be used to mediate between the two. In this paper we motivate the need and discuss the requirements for mediators between mathematical knowledge bases and theorem proving systems. We also present an attempt at a concurrent mediator between a knowledge base and a proof planning system. (shrink)

This books presents the refereed proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, TABLEAUX '96, held in Terrasini near Palermo, Italy, in May 1996. The 18 full revised papers included together with two invited papers present state-of-the-art results in this dynamic area of research. Besides more traditional aspects of tableaux reasoning, the collection also contains several papers dealing with other approaches to automated reasoning. The spectrum of logics dealt with covers several nonclassical logics, including modal, (...) intuitionistic, many-valued, temporal and linear logic. (shrink)

Computer assisted theorem proving is an increasingly important part of mathematical methodology, as well as a long-standing topic in artificial intelligence (AI) research. However, the current generation of theorem proving software have limited functioning in terms of providing new proofs. Importantly, they are not able to discriminate interesting theorems and proofs from trivial ones. In order for computers to develop further in theorem proving, there would need to be a radical change in how the (...) software functions. Recently, machine learning results in solving mathematical tasks have shown early promise that deep artificial neural networks could learn symbolic mathematical processing. In this paper, I analyze the theoretical prospects of such neural networks in proving mathematical theorems. In particular, I focus on the question how such AI systems could be incorporated in practice to theorem proving and what consequences that could have. In the most optimistic scenario, this includes the possibility of autonomous automated theorem provers (AATP). Here I discuss whether such AI systems could, or should, become accepted as active agents in mathematical communities. (shrink)

We investigate mathematical structures that provide natural semantics for families of (quantified) non-classical logics featuring special unary connectives, known as recovery operators, that allow us to ‘recover’ the properties of classical logic in a controlled manner. These structures are known as topological Boolean algebras, which are Boolean algebras extended with additional operations subject to specific conditions of a topological nature. In this study, we focus on the paradigmatic case of negation. We demonstrate how these algebras are well-suited to provide a (...) semantics for some families of paraconsistent Logics of Formal Inconsistency and paracomplete Logics of Formal Undeterminedness. These logics feature recovery operators used to earmark propositions that behave ‘classically’ when interacting with non-classical negations. Unlike traditional semantical investigations, which are carried out in natural language (extended with mathematical shorthand), our formal meta-language is a system of higher-order logic (HOL) for which automated reasoning tools exist. In our approach, topological Boolean algebras are encoded as algebras of sets via their Stone-type representation. We use our higher-order meta-logic to define and interrelate several transformations on unary set operations, which naturally give rise to a topological cube of opposition. Additionally, our approach enables a uniform characterization of propositional, first-order and higher-order quantification, including restrictions to constant and varying domains. With this work, we aim to make a case for the utilization of automated theorem proving technology for conducting computer-supported research in non-classical logics. All the results presented in this paper have been formally verified, and in many cases obtained, using the Isabelle/HOL proof assistant. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce Speedith which is an interactive diagrammatic theorem prover for the well-known language of spider diagrams. Speedith provides a way to input spider diagrams, transform them via the diagrammatic inference rules, and prove diagrammatic theorems. Speedith’s inference rules are sound and complete, extending previous research by including all the classical logic connectives. In addition to being a stand-alone proof system, Speedith is also designed as a program that plugs into existing general purpose theorem (...) provers. This allows for other systems to access diagrammatic reasoning via Speedith, as well as a formal verification of diagrammatic proof steps within standard sentential proof assistants. We describe the general structure of Speedith, the diagrammatic language, the automatic mechanism that draws the diagrams when inference rules are applied on them, and how formal diagrammatic proofs are constructed. (shrink)

THINKER is an automated natural deduction first-order theorem proving program. This paper reports on how it was adapted so as to prove theorems in modal logic. The method employed is an indirect semantic method, obtained by considering the semantic conditions involved in being a valid argument in these modal logics. The method is extended from propositional modal logic to predicate modal logic, and issues concerning the domain of quantification and existence in a world's domain are discussed. Finally, (...) we look at the very interesting issues involved with adding identity to the theorem prover in the realm of modal predicate logic. Various alternatives are discussed. (shrink)

We present a method for integrating rippling-based rewriting into matrix-based theorem proving as a means for automating inductive specification proofs. The selection of connections in an inductive matrix proof is guided by symmetries between induction hypothesis and induction conclusion. Unification is extended by decision procedures and a rippling/reverse-rippling heuristic. Conditional substitutions are generated whenever a uniform substitution is impossible. We illustrate the integrated method by discussing several inductive proofs for the integer square root problem as well as the (...) algorithms extracted from these proofs. (shrink)

A growing number of applications of automated reasoning exhibitsthe necessity of flexible deduction systems. A deduction system should beable to execute inference rules which are appropriate to the given problem.One way to achieve this behavior is the integration of different calculi. Thisled to so called hybrid reasoning [22, 1, 10, 20] which means the integrationof a general purpose foreground reasoner with a specialized background reasoner. A typical task of a background reasoner is to perform special purposeinference rules according to (...) a built-in theory. The aim of this paper is togo a step further, i.e. to treat the background reasoner as a hybrid systemitself. The paper formulates sufficient criteria for the construction of complete calculi which enable reasoning under hybrid theories combined fromsub-theories. For this purpose we use a generic approach described in [20].This more detailed view on built-in theories is not covered by the knowngeneral approaches [1, 3, 6, 20] for building in theories into theorem provers.The approach is demonstrated by its application to the target calculi of thealgebraic translation [9] of multi-modal and extended multi-modal [7] logicto first-order logic. (shrink)

Theorems in automated theorem proving are usually proved by formal logical proofs. However, there is a subset of problems which humans can prove by the use of geometric operations on diagrams, so called diagrammatic proofs. Insight is often more clearly perceived in these proofs than in the corresponding algebraic proofs; they capture an intuitive notion of truthfulness that humans find easy to see and understand. We are investigating and automating such diagrammatic reasoning about mathematical theorems. Concrete, rather (...) than general diagrams are used to prove particular concrete instances of the universally quantified theorem. The diagrammatic proof is captured by the use of geometric operations on the diagram. These operations are the inference steps of the proof. An abstracted schematic proof of the universally quantified theorem is induced from these proof instances. The constructive -rule provides the mathematical basis for this step from schematic proofs to theoremhood. In this way we avoid the difficulty of treating a general case in a diagram. One method of confirming that the abstraction of the schematic proof from the proof instances is sound is proving the correctness of schematic proofs in the meta-theory of diagrams. These ideas have been implemented in the system, called Diamond, which is presented here. (shrink)

We combine state-of-the-art techniques from computational linguisticsand theorem proving to build an engine for playing text adventures,computer games with which the player interacts purely through naturallanguage. The system employs a parser for dependency grammar and ageneration system based on TAG, and has components for resolving andgenerating referring expressions. Most of these modules make heavy useof inferences offered by a modern theorem prover for descriptionlogic. Our game engine solves some problems inherent in classical textadventures, and is an interesting (...) test case for the interactionbetween natural language processing and inference. (shrink)

In this paper we propose a way to deal with natural language inference by implementing Modern Type Theoretical Semantics in the proof assistant Coq. The paper is a first attempt to deal with NLI and natural language reasoning in general by using the proof assistant technology. Valid NLIs are treated as theorems and as such the adequacy of our account is tested by trying to prove them. We use Luo’s Modern Type Theory with coercive subtyping as the formal language into (...) which we translate natural language semantics, and we further implement these semantics in the Coq proof assistant. It is shown that the use of a MTT with an adequate subtyping mechanism can give us a number of promising results as regards NLI. Specifically, it is shown that a number of inference cases, i.e. quantifiers, adjectives, conjoined noun phrases and temporal reference among other things can be successfully dealt with. It is then shown, that even though Coq is an interactive and not an automated theorem prover, automation of all of the test examples is possible by introducing user-defined automated tactics. Lastly, the paper offers a number of innovative approaches to NL phenomena like adjectives, collective predication, comparatives and factive verbs among other things, contributing in this respect to the theoretical study of formal semantics using MTTs. (shrink)

This is an introduction to the Isabelle proof assistant aimed at philosophers and their students.

Many types of everyday and specialized reasoning depend on diagrams: we use maps to find our way, we draw graphs and sketches to communicate concepts and prove geometrical theorems, and we manipulate diagrams to explore new creative solutions to problems. The active involvement and manipulation of representational artifacts for purposes of thinking and communicating is discussed in relation to C.S. Peirce’s notion of diagrammatical reasoning. We propose to extend Peirce’s original ideas and sketch a conceptual framework that delineates different kinds (...) of diagram manipulation: Sometimes diagrams are manipulated in order to profile known information in an optimal fashion. At other times diagrams are explored in order to gain new insights, solve problems or discover hidden meaning potentials. The latter cases often entail manipulations that either generate additional information or extract information by means of abstraction. Ideas are substantiated by reference to ethnographic, experimental and historical examples. (shrink)

This work provides proof-search algorithms and automated counter-model extraction for a class of STIT logics. With this, we answer an open problem concerning syntactic decision procedures and cut-free calculi for STIT logics. A new class of cut-free complete labelled sequent calculi G3LdmL^m_n, for multi-agent STIT with at most n-many choices, is introduced. We refine the calculi G3LdmL^m_n through the use of propagation rules and demonstrate the admissibility of their structural rules, resulting in auxiliary calculi Ldm^m_nL. In the single-agent case, (...) we show that the refined calculi Ldm^m_nL derive theorems within a restricted class of (forestlike) sequents, allowing us to provide proof-search algorithms that decide single-agent STIT logics. We prove that the proof-search algorithms are correct and terminate. (shrink)

We investigate several approaches to resolution based automated theoremproving in classical higher-order logic (based on Church's simply typedλ-calculus) and discuss their requirements with respect to Henkincompleteness and full extensionality. In particular we focus on Andrews' higher-order resolution (Andrews 1971), Huet's constrained resolution (Huet1972), higher-order E-resolution, and extensional higher-order resolution(Benzmüller and Kohlhase 1997). With the help of examples we illustratethe parallels and differences of the extensionality treatment of these approachesand demonstrate that extensional higher-order resolution is the sole approach thatcan completely (...) avoid additional extensionality axioms. (shrink)

Although resolution-based inference is perhaps the industry standard in automated theorem proving, there have always been systems that employed a different format. For example, the Logic Theorist of 1957 produced proofs by using an axiomatic system, and the proofs it generated would be considered legitimate axiomatic proofs; Wang’s systems of the late 1950’s employed a Gentzen-sequent proof strategy; Beth’s systems written about the same time employed his semantic tableaux method; and Prawitz’s systems of again about the same (...) time are often said to employ a natural deduction format. [See Newell, et al (1957), Beth (1958), Wang (1960), and Prawitz et al (1960)]. Like sequent proof systems and tableaux proof systems, natural deduction systems retain.. (shrink)

We describe an extension to our quantifier-free computational logic to provide the expressive power and convenience of bounded quantifiers and partial functions. By quantifier we mean a formal construct which introduces a bound or indicial variable whose scope is some subexpression of the quantifier expression. A familiar quantifier is the Σ operator which sums the values of an expression over some range of values on the bound variable. Our method is to represent expressions of the logic as objects in the (...) logic, to define an interpreter for such expressions as a function in the logic, and then define quantifiers as "mapping functions." The novelty of our approach lies in the formalization of the interpreter and its interaction with the underlying logic. Our method has several advantages over other formal systems that provide quantifiers and partial functions in a logical setting. The most important advantage is that proofs not involving quantification or partial recursive functions are not complicated by such notions as "capturing," "bottom," or "continuity." Naturally enough, our formalization of the partial functions is nonconstructive. The theorem prover for the logic has been modified to support these new features. We describe the modifications. The system has proved many theorems that could not previously be stated in our logic. Among them are. (shrink)

Depending on what one means by the main connective of logic, the -if..., then... -, several systems of logic result: classic and modal logics, intuitionistic logic or relevance logic. This book presents the underlying ideas, the syntax and the semantics of these logics. Soundness and completeness are shown constructively and in a uniform way. Attention is paid to the interdisciplinary role of logic: its embedding in the foundations of mathematics and its intimate connection with philosophy, in particular the philosophy of (...) language. Set theory is presented both as a conditio sine qua non for logic and as a interesting exact ontology. The study of infinite sets yields perplexing results. Formalization of informal number theory results in formal number theory; Godel's incompleteness is treated. At appropriate places attention is paid to paradoxes, intuitionism, conditionals, the historical development of logic, to logic programming and automated theorem proving for classical logic.". (shrink)

The paper outlines the advantages and limits of the so-called ‘Calculus CL’ in the field of ontology engineering and automated theorem proving. CL is a diagram type that combines features of tree, Euler-type, Venn-type diagrams and squares of opposition. Due to the simple taxonomical structures and intuitive rules of CL, it is easy to edit ontologies and to prove inferences.

Smullyan wrote his famous book of puzzles before the boom in automated theorem proving and he solved the puzzles by hand. Hence it is interesting to investigate whether all the puzzles can be solved with one method or not. The paper shows how this can be done with analytic tableaux.

This paper outlines a logical representation of certain aspects of the process of mathematical proving that are important from the point of view of Artificial Intelligence. Our starting point is the concept of proof-event or proving, introduced by Goguen, instead of the traditional concept of mathematical proof. The reason behind this choice is that in contrast to the traditional static concept of mathematical proof, proof-events are understood as processes, which enables their use in Artificial Intelligence in such contexts (...) in which problem-solving procedures and strategies are studied. We represent proof-events as problem-centred spatio-temporal processes by means of the language of the calculus of events, which adequately captures certain temporal aspects of proof-events (i.e. that they have history and form sequences of proof-events evolving in time). Further, we suggest a “loose” semantics for the proof events by means of Kolmogorov’s calculus of problems. Finally, we expose the intented interpretations for our logical model from the fields of automated theorem-proving and Web-based collective proving. (shrink)

Thus, despite the di culty of higher-order automated theorem proving, which has to deal with problems like the undecidability of higher-order uni - cation (HOU) and the need for primitive substitution, there are proof problems which lie beyond the capabilities of rst-order theorem provers, but instead can be solved easily by an higher-order theorem prover (HOATP) like Leo. This is due to the expressiveness of higher-order Logic and, in the special case of Leo, due to (...) an appropriate handling of the extensionality principles (functional extensionality and extensionality on truth values). (shrink)

Benchmarking automated theorem proving (ATP) systems using standardized problem sets is a well-established method for measuring their performance. However, the availability of such libraries for non-classical logics is very limited. In this work we propose a library for benchmarking Girard's (propositional) intuitionistic linear logic. For a quick bootstrapping of the collection of problems, and for discussing the selection of relevant problems and understanding their meaning as linear logic theorems, we use translations of the collection of Kleene's intuitionistic (...) theorems in the traditional monograph "Introduction to Metamathematics". We analyze four different translations of intuitionistic logic into linear logic and compare their proofs using a linear logic based prover with focusing. In order to enhance the set of problems in our library, we apply the three provability-preserving translations to the propositional benchmarks in the ILTP Library. Finally, we generate a comprehensive set of reachability problems for Petri nets and encode such problems as linear logic sequents, thus enlarging our collection of problems. (shrink)

This is the 3rd edition. Although a number of new technological applications require classical deductive computation with non-classical logics, many key technologies still do well—or exclusively, for that matter—with classical logic. In this first volume, we elaborate on classical deductive computing with classical logic. The objective of the main text is to provide the reader with a thorough elaboration on both classical computing – a.k.a. formal languages and automata theory – and classical deduction with the classical first-order predicate calculus with (...) a view to computational implementations, namely in automated theorem proving and logic programming. The present third edition improves on the previous ones by providing an altogether more algorithmic approach: There is now a wholly new section on algorithms and there are in total fourteen clearly isolated algorithms designed in pseudo-code. Other improvements are, for instance, an emphasis on functions in Chapter 1 and more exercises with Turing machines. (shrink)

The refereed proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Automated Deduction, CADE 2003, held in Miami Beach, FL, USA in July 2003. The 29 revised full papers and 7 system description papers presented together with an invited paper and 3 abstracts of invited talks were carefully reviewed and selected from 83 submissions. All current aspects of automated deduction are discussed, ranging from theoretical and methodological issues to the presentation of new theorem provers and systems.

The European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence was held at the Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science in Amsterdam, September 10-14, 1990. This volume includes the 29 papers selected and presented at the workshop together with 7 invited papers. The main themes are: - Logic programming and automated theorem proving, - Computational semantics for natural language, - Applications of non-classical logics, - Partial and dynamic logics.

Automated theorem proving amounts to solving search problems in usually tremendous search spaces. A lot of research therefore focuses on search space reductions. Our approach reduces the search space which arises when using so-called connection tableau calculi for first-order automated theorem proving. It uses disjunctive constraints over first-order equations to compress certain parts of this search space. We present the basics of our constrained-connection-tableau calculi, a constraint extension of connection tableau calculi, and deal with (...) the efficient handling of constraints during the search process. The new techniques are integrated into the automated connection tableau prover Setheo. (shrink)

Automated theorem proving amounts to solving search problems in usually tremendous search spaces. A lot of research therefore focuses on search space reductions. Our approach reduces the search space which arises when using so-called connection tableau calculi for first-order automated theorem proving. It uses disjunctive constraints over first-order equations to compress certain parts of this search space. We present the basics of our constrained-connection-tableau calculi, a constraint extension of connection tableau calculi, and deal with (...) the efficient handling of constraints during the search process. The new techniques are integrated into the automated connection tableau prover Setheo. (shrink)

This volume contains finalized versions of papers presented at an international workshop on extensions of logic programming, held at the Seminar for Natural Language Systems at the University of Tübingen in December 1989. Several recent extensions of definite Horn clause programming, especially those with a proof-theoretic background, have much in common. One common thread is a new emphasis on hypothetical reasoning, which is typically inspired by Gentzen-style sequent or natural deduction systems. This is not only of theoretical significance, but also (...) bears upon computational issues. It was one purpose of the workshop to bring some of these recent developments together. The volume covers topics such as the languages Lambda-Prolog, N-Prolog, and GCLA, the relationship between logic programming and functional programming, and the relationship between extensions of logic programming and automated theorem proving. It contains the results of the first conference concentrating on proof-theoretic approaches to logic programming. (shrink)

In this paper, we show that Higher{Order Coloured Uni cation { a form of uni cation developed for automated theorem proving { provides a general theory for modeling the interface between the interpretation process and other sources of linguistic, non semantic information. In particular, it provides the general theory for the Primary Occurrence Restriction which (Dalrymple et al., 1991)'s analysis called for.

This book contains an introduction to symbolic logic and a thorough discussion of mechanical theorem proving and its applications. The book consists of three major parts. Chapters 2 and 3 constitute an introduction to symbolic logic. Chapters 4–9 introduce several techniques in mechanical theorem proving, and Chapters 10 an 11 show how theorem proving can be applied to various areas such as question answering, problem solving, program analysis, and program synthesis.

In practice, mathematical proofs are most often the result of careful planning by the agents who produced them. As a consequence, each mathematical proof inherits a plan in virtue of the way it is produced, a plan which underlies its “architecture” or “unity”. This paper provides an account of plans and planning in the context of mathematical proofs. The approach adopted here consists in looking for these notions not in mathematical proofs themselves, but in the agents who produced them. The (...) starting point is to recognize that to each mathematical proof corresponds a proof activity which consists of a sequence of deductive inferences—i.e., a sequence of epistemic actions—and that any written mathematical proof is only a report of its corresponding proof activity. The main idea to be developed is that the plan of a mathematical proof is to be conceived and analyzed as the plan of the agent(s) who carried out the corresponding proof activity. The core of the paper is thus devoted to the development of an account of plans and planning in the context of proof activities. The account is based on the theory of planning agency developed by Michael Bratman in the philosophy of action. It is fleshed out by providing an analysis of the notions of intention—the elementary components of plans—and practical reasoning—the process by which plans are constructed—in the context of proof activities. These two notions are then used to offer a precise characterization of the desired notion of plan for proof activities. A fruitful connection can then be established between the resulting framework and the recent theme of modularity in mathematics introduced by Jeremy Avigad. This connection is exploited to yield the concept of modular presentations of mathematical proofs which has direct implications for how to write and present mathematical proofs so as to deliver various epistemic benefits. The account is finally compared to the technique of proof planning developed by Alan Bundy and colleagues in the field of automated theorem proving. The paper concludes with some remarks on how the framework can be used to provide an analysis of understanding and explanation in the context of mathematical proofs. (shrink)

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Automated Deduction, CADE-13, held in July/August 1996 in New Brunswick, NJ, USA, as part of FLoC '96. The volume presents 46 revised regular papers selected from a total of 114 submissions in this category; also included are 15 selected system descriptions and abstracts of two invited talks. The CADE conferences are the major forum for the presentation of new results in all aspects of automated deduction. Therefore, (...) the volume is a timely report on the state-of-the-art in the area. (shrink)

Logic and Computation is concerned with techniques for formal theorem-proving, with particular reference to Cambridge LCF (Logic for Computable Functions). Cambridge LCF is a computer program for reasoning about computation. It combines methods of mathematical logic with domain theory, the basis of the denotational approach to specifying the meaning of statements in a programming language. This book consists of two parts. Part I outlines the mathematical preliminaries: elementary logic and domain theory. They are explained at an intuitive level, (...) giving references to more advanced reading. Part II provides enough detail to serve as a reference manual for Cambridge LCF. It will also be a useful guide for implementors of other programs based on the LCF approach. (shrink)

Hao Wang, a prolific philosopher and researcher, was known for his close intellectual friendship with Kurt Gödel, his advocacy for the study of logic at Oxford, and for his path-breaking contributions to logic and automated theorem proving. Yet in a memorial volume published sixteen years after Wang’s passing, the editors Charles Parsons and Montgomery Link noted “rather little has been published on Wang’s considerable body of work or on the man’s personality and unusual personal history.” The goal (...) of this article is to see what light Wang’s logical journey in life sheds on Chinese philosophy and the Western analytic tradition. (shrink)