Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

More on the problem of finding a mapping between clause representation and natural-deduction representation

  • Basic Research Problem
  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. AndrewsP. B., Refutations by Matings, IEEE Trans. Comput. C 25 (1976), 801–807.

    Google Scholar 

  2. AndrewsP. B., ‘Transforming matings into natural deduction proofs’, in 5th Conference on Automated Deduction (ed. W.Bibel and R.Kowalski), Les Arcs, France, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 87, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1980, pp. 281–292.

    Google Scholar 

  3. BibelW. and SchreiberJ., ‘Proof search in a Gentzen-like system of first-order logic’, in International Computing Symposium 1975 (ed. E.Gelenbe and D.Potier), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975, pp. 205–212.

    Google Scholar 

  4. BibelW., ‘A theoretical basis for the systematic proof method’, in Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1980, Proceedings of the 9th Symposium, held in Rydzyna, Poland (ed. P.Dembinski), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 88, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980, pp. 154–167.

    Google Scholar 

  5. BibelW., Automated Theorem Proving, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. ChesterD., The translation of formal proofs into English, Artificial Intelligence 7 (1976), 261–278.

    Google Scholar 

  7. CookS. A. and ReckhowR. A., The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, J. Symbolic Logic 44 (1979), 36–50.

    Google Scholar 

  8. EderE., A comparison of the resolution calculus and the connection method, in CSL'88–2nd Workshop on Computer Science Logic (ed. E.Borger, H. KleineBuning, and M. M.Richter), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 385, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989, 80–98.

    Google Scholar 

  9. EderE., Relative Complexities of First Order Calculi, Vieweg Verlag, Braunschweig, 1990 (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Felty, A. P., Using extended tactics to do proof transformations, Tech. Report MS-CIS-86-89, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1986.

  11. HuangX., Proof transformation towards human reasoning style, in Proceedings of the 13th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence (ed. D.Metzing), Informatik-Fachberichte 216, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989, pp. 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  12. HuangX., Reference Choices in Mathematical Proofs, in Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ed. Luigia CarlucciAiello), Pitman Publishing, London, 1990, pp. 720–725.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lingenfelder, C., Structuring Computer Generated Proofs, in Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ed. N. S. Sridharan), Morgan Kaufmann, 1989, pp. 378–383.

  14. Lingenfelder, C., Transformation and structuring of computer generated proofs, PhD Thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, 1990.

  15. Miller, D. A. Proofs in higher-order logic, PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1983.

  16. MillerD. A., Expansion tree proofs and their conversion to natural deduction proofs, in 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction (ed. R. E.Shostak), Napa, California, USA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 170, Springer-Verlag Berlin, 1984, pp. 375–393.

    Google Scholar 

  17. MillerD. A., A compact representation of proofs, Studia Logica 46 (1987), 347–370.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller, D. A. and Felty A., An integration of resolution and natural deduction theorem proving, in AAAI-86, Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ed. Tom Kehler, Stan Rosenschein, Robert Filman, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider), Philadelphia, PA, August, 1986, pp. 198–202.

  19. PfenningF., Analytic and Non-analytic Proofs, in 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction (ed. R. E.Shostak), Napa, California, USA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 170, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984, pp. 394–413.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pfenning, F., Proof transformations in higher-order logic, PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987.

  21. PfenningF. and NesmithD., Presenting intuitive deductions via symmetric simplification, in 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction (ed. M. E.Stickel), Kaiserslautern, FRG, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 449, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990, pp. 336–350.

    Google Scholar 

  22. PierceW., Toward mechanical methods for streamlining proofs, in 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction (ed. M. E.Stickel), Kaiserslautern, FRG, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 449, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990, pp. 351–365.

    Google Scholar 

  23. WallenL. A., Automated Deduction in Nonclassical Logics, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  24. WosL., The problem of finding a mapping between clause representation and natural-deduction representation, J. Automated Reasoning 6 (1990), 211–212.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carnegie Mellon University, 15213-3890, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.

    Peter B. Andrews

Authors
  1. Peter B. Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CCR-9002546.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andrews, P.B. More on the problem of finding a mapping between clause representation and natural-deduction representation. J Autom Reasoning 7, 285–286 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00243811

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00243811

Keywords

Search

Navigation