Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

First Order Stålmarck

Universal Lemmas Through Branch Merges

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

Abstract

We present a proof method with a novel way of introducing universal lemmas. The method is a first order extension of Stålmarck’s method, containing a branch-and-merge rule known as the dilemma rule. The dilemma rule creates two branches in a tableau-like way, but later recombines the two branches, keeping the common consequences. While the propositional version uses normal set intersection in the merges, the first order version searches for pairwise unifiable formulae in the two branches. Within branches, the system uses a special kind of variables that may not be substituted. At branch merges, these variables are replaced by universal variables, and in this way universal lemmas can be introduced. Relevant splitting formulae are found through failed unifications of variables in branches. This article presents the calculus and proof procedure, and shows soundness and completeness. Benchmarks of an implementation are also presented.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersson, G., Bjesse, P., Cook, B., Hanna, Z.: A proof engine approach to solving combinational design automation problems. In: Design Automation Conference (DAC), pp. 725–730, ACM, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baumgartner, P., Tinelli, C.: The model evolution calculus. In: Baader, F. (ed.) CADE-19 – The 19th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2741. Springer, Berlin (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgartner, P., Tinelli, C.: The model evolution calculus with equality. In: CADE. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3632 pp. 392–408. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baumgartner, P., Tinelli, C.: The model evolution calculus as a first-order DPLL method. Artif. Intell. 172(4–5), 591–632 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H.: The even more liberalized δ-Rule in free variable semantic tableaux. In: Gottlob, G., Leitsch, A., Mundici, D. (eds.) Proceedings, 3rd Kurt Gödel Colloquium (KGC), Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 108–119. Springer, Berlin (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Billon, J.-P.: The disconnection method: a confluent integration of unification in the analytic framework. In: TABLEAUX’96. LNAI, vol. 1071, pp. 110–126. Springer, Berlin (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Björk, M.: Extending Stålmarck’s method to first order logic. In: Mayer, M.C., Pirri, F. (eds.) TABLEAUX 2003 Position Papers and Tutorials, pp. 23–36, Dipartimento di Informatica e Automazione, Università degli Studi di Roma Tre (2003)

  8. Björk, M.: Adding equivalence classes to Stålmarck’s method in first order logic. In: IJCAR Doctoral Programme. http://CEUR-WS.org/Vol-106/02-bjork.ps: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 106 (2004)

  9. Björk, M.: A first order extension of Stålmarck’s method. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, pp. 276–291. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Björk, M.: A first order extension of Stålmarcks method. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computing Science, Chalmers University of Technology (2006)

  11. Borälv, A.: The industrial success of verification tools based on Stålmarck’s method. In: Computer Aided Verification, CAV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1254. Springer, Berlin (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Borälv, A.: Case study: formal verification of a computerized railway interlocking. Form. Asp. Comput. 10(4), 338–360 (1998)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cook, B., Gonthier, G.: Using Stålmarck’s algorithm to prove inequalities. In: 7th International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods (ICFEM), pp. 330–344 (2005)

  14. Davis, M.: The early history of automated deduction. In [25], chap. 1, pp. 3–15 (2001)

  15. Davis, M., Logemann, G., Loveland, D.: A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun. ACM 5, 394–397 (1962)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, M., Putnam, H.: A computing procedure for quantification theory. JACM 7(3), 201–215 (1960)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Fitting, M.C.: First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1996)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Gilmore, P.C.: A proof method for quantification theory: its justification and realization. IBM J. Res. Develop. 4, 28–35 (1960)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H.: The liberalized δ-rule in free variable semantic tableaux. J. Autom. Reason. 13(2), 211–222 (1994)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Letz, R., Stenz, G.: Proof and model generation with disconnection tableaux. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LNAI, vol. 2250, pp. 142–156. Springer, New York (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Letz, R., Stenz, G.: Integration of equality reasoning into the disconnection calculus. In: TABLEAUX. LNCS, vol. 2381, pp. 176–190. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  22. McCune, W.: OTTER 3.3 Reference Manual’. CoRR. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.SC/0310056, cs.SC/0310056 (2003)

  23. Mondadori, M.: Classical analytical deduction. Annali dell’ Università di Ferrara, Nuova Serie, sezione III, Filosofia, discussion paper, n. 1, Università degli Studi di Ferrara (1988)

  24. Ramakrishnan, I.V., Sekar, R., Voronkov, A.: Term indexing. In [25], chap. 26, pp. 1853–1965 (2001)

  25. Robinson, A., Voronkov, A. (eds.): Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Robinson, J.A.: A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution Principle. J. ACM 12(1), 23–41 (1965)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Sheeran, M., Stålmarck, G.: A tutorial on Stålmarck’s proof procedure for propositional logic. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 16(1), 23–58 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smullyan, R.M.: First-Order Logic, 2nd corrected edn. Dover Publications, New York. First published 1968 by Springer-Verlag (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stenz, G., Wolf, A.: E-SETHEO: an automated3 theorem prover—system abstract. In: Dyckhoff, R. (ed.) Proc. of the TABLEAUX’2000. LNAI, vol. 1847, pp. 436–440. Springer, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sutcliffe, G.: The IJCAR-2004 automated theorem proving competition. AI Commun. 18(1), 33–40 (2005)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.: The TPTP problem library: CNF release v1.2.1. J. Autom. Reason. 21(2), 177–203 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Magnus Björk

Authors
  1. Magnus Björk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magnus Björk.

Additional information

The research was chiefly carried out during the author’s PhD studies at Chalmers University of Technology, partially funded by Prover Technology. Large parts of the article was written during the author’s employment at Oxford University Computing Laboratory.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Björk, M. First Order Stålmarck. J Autom Reasoning 42, 99–122 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-008-9115-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-008-9115-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation