Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 235–259 | Cite as

Program tactics and logic tactics

  • Fausto Giunchiglia
  • Paolo Traverso


In this paper we present a first order classical metatheory, called MT, with the following properties: (1) tactics are terms of the language of MT (we call these tactics,Logic Tactics); (2) there exists a mapping between Logic Tactics and the tactics developed as programs within the GETFOL theorem prover (we call these tactics,Program Tactics). MT is expressive enough to represent the most interesting tacticals, i.e.,then, orelse, try, progress andrepeat. repeat allows us to express Logic Tactics which correspond to Program Tactics which may not terminate. This work is part of a larger project which aims at the development and mechanization of a metatheory which can be used to reason about, extend and, possibly, modify the code implementing Program Tactics and the GETFOL basic inference rules.


Neural Network Artificial Intelligence Complex System Nonlinear Dynamics Inference Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Armando,Architetture Riflessive per la Deduzione Automatica, Ph.D. Thesis, DIST — University of Genoa (1993).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. Basin and R. Constable, Metalogical frameworks,Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Logical Frameworks, Edinburgh, Scotland (1991). To appear as a chapter in a Cambridge University Press book.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore,A Computational Logic, ACM monograph series (Academic Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore, Metafunctions: proving them correct and using them efficiently as new proof procedures, in:The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, eds. R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore (Academic Press, 1981) pp. 103–184.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore, A theorem prover for a computational logic,Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 449 (Springer-Verlag, 1990) pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs,Proc. of the 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, eds. R. Luck and R. Overbeek (Springer-Verlag, 1988) pp. 111–120. Longer version available as DAI Research Paper No. 349, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Cartwright and J. McCarthy, Recursive programs as functions in a first order theory (March, 1979). SAIL MEMO AIM-324. Also available as CS Dept. Report No. STAN-CS-79-17.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R.L. Constable, S.F. Allen, H.M. Bromley et al.,Implementing Mathematics with the NuPRL Proof Development System (Prentice-Hall, 1986).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Felty, Implementing tactics and tacticals in a higher-order logic programming language,Journal of Automated Reasoning 11(1993) 43–81.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Felty and D. Howe, Tactic theorem proving with refinement tree proofs and metavariables,Proc. of the 12th Conference on Automated Deduction, ed. A. Bundy (Springer-Verlag, 1994) pp. 605–619.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Felty and D. Miller, Specifying theorem provers in a higher-order logic programming language,Proc. of the 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, eds. R. Luck and R. Overbeek (Springer-Verlag, 1988) pp. 61–80.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    F. Giunchiglia, The GETFOL Manual — GETFOL version 1, Technical Report 92-0010, DIST — University of Genova, Genoa, Italy (1992).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    F. Giunchiglia and A. Armando, A conceptual architecture for introspective systems, Forthcoming IRST-Technical Report (1993).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    F. Giunchiglia and A. Cimatti, HGKM Manual — a revised version, Technical Repot 8906-22, IRST, Trento, Italy (1989).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    F. Giunchiglia and A. Cimatti, Introspective metatheoretic reasoning,Proc. of META-94, Workshop on Metaprogramming in Logic, Pisa, Italy (June 19–21, 1994). Also IRST-Technical Report 9211-21, IRST, Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    F. Giunchiglia and P. Traverso, Reflective reasoning with and between a declarative metatheory and the implementation code,Proc. of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sydney (1991) pp. 111–117. Also IRST-Technical Report 9012-03, IRST, Trento, Italy.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    F. Giunchiglia and P. Traverso, A metatheory of a mechanized object theory,Artificial Intelligence 80 (1996) 197–241. Also IRST-Technical Report 9211-24, IRST, Trento, Italy (1992).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    J. Goguen, Higher-order functions considered unnecessary for higher-order programming,Research Topics in Functional Programming, ed. D.A. Turner (Addison-Wesley, 1990) pp. 309–351.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Goguen, A. Stevens, H. Hilbrdink and K. Hobley, 2OBJ: a metalogical framework theorem prover based on equational logic,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 339 (1992) 69–86.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. Goguen, T. Winkler, J. Meseguer, K. Futatsugi and J. Jouannaud, Introducing OBJ, in:Applications of Algebraic Specification Using OBJ, eds. J. Goguen, D. Coleman and R. Gallimore (Cambridge, 1992).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M.J. Gordon, A.J. Milner and C.P. Wadsworth,Edinburgh LCF — A Mechanized Logic of Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 78 (Springer-Verlag, 1979).Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. J. Gordon, R. Milner, L. Morris and C. Wadsworth, A metalanguage for interactive proof in LCF. CSR Report series CSR-16-77, Department of Artificial Intelligence, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh (1977).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    D.J. Howe, Computational metatheory in Nuprl, in:CADE9, eds. R. Lusk and R. Overbeek (1988).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    M. Kerber and M. Kohlhase, A mechanization of strong kleene logic for partial functions,Proc. of the 12th Conference on Automated Deduction, ed. A. Bundy (Springer-Verlag, 1994) pp. 371–385.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Z. Manna,Mathematical Theory of Computation (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    E. Melis, A model of analogy-driven proof-plan construction,Proc. of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1995).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    L. Paulson, Tactics and tacticals in Cambridge LCF, Technical Report 39, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge (1979).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    L. Paulson, The foundation of a generic theorem prover,Journal of Automated Reasoning 5 (1989) 363–396.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    L. Paulson, Designing a theorem prover, in:Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, Vol. II, eds. S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay and T.S.E. Maibaum (Oxford University Press, 1992) pp. 416–475.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    D. Prawitz,Natural Deduction — A Proof Theoretical Study (Almquist and Wiskell, Stockholm, 1965).Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    J. von Wright, Representing higher-order logic proofs in HOL, Technical Report jan-18-94, Abo Akademi University, Turku, Finland (1994).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    R.W. Weyhrauch, Prolegomena to a theory of mechanized formal reasoning,Artificial Intelligence 13(1) (1980) 133–176.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J.C. Baltzer AG, Science Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fausto Giunchiglia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paolo Traverso
    • 1
  1. 1.IRST, Instituto per la Ricerca Scientifica e TecnologicaTrentoItaly
  2. 2.University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations