Studia Logica

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 45–66 | Cite as

Strategic Construction of Fitch-style Proofs

  • Frederic D. Portoraro
Article

Abstract

Symlog is a system for learning symbolic logic by computer that allows students to interactively construct proofs in Fitch-style natural deduction. On request, Symlog can provide guidance and advice to help a student narrow the gap between goal theorem and premises. To effectively implement this capability, the program was equipped with a theorem prover that constructs proofs using the same methods and techniques the students are being taught. This paper discusses some of the aspects of the theorem prover's design, including its set of proof-construction strategies, its unification algorithm as well as some of the tradeoffs between efficiency and pedagogy.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Fitch, F. B., Symbolic Logic: An Introduction, Ronald (1952).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Fitting, M., First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer-Verlag (1990).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    JaŚkowski, S., 'On the rules of suppositions in formal logic', Studia Logica I (1934).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Pelletier, F. J., Further developments in THINKER: An automated theorem prover, Technical Report TR-ARP-16/87, Australian National University (1987).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Portoraro, F. D., 'Designing and implementing finite structures in Symlog', Philosophy and the Computer, L. Burkholder editor, 229-234, Westview (1992).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Portoraro, F. D., 'Symlog: Automated advice in Fitch-style proof construction', Automated Deduction-CADE 12, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, A. Bundy editor, vol. 814, 802-806, Springer-Verlag (1994).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Portoraro, F. D., Natural Deduction in Peano Arithmetic (Addendum to Logic with Symlog: Learning Symbolic Logic by Computer), Prentice-Hall (1994).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Portoraro, F. D., and R. E. Tully, Logic with Symlog: Learning Symbolic Logic by Computer, Prentice-Hall (1994). The software: Symlog ver. 2.0 (1992).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Prawitz, D., Natural Deduction: A Proof Theoretical Study, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm (1965).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Sieg, W., Intercalation Calculi for Classical Logic, Report CMU-PHIL 46, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie-Mellon University (1994).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Sieg, W., and J. Byrnes, Normal Natural Deduction Proofs (in classical logic), Report CMU-PHIL 74, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie-Mellon University (1996).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Sieg, W., and B. Kauffmann, Unification for Quantified Formulae, Report CMU-PHIL 44, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie-Mellon University (1993).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Sieg, W., and R. Scheines, 'Searching for proofs (in sentential logic)', Philosophy and the Computer, L. Burkholder editor, 137-159, Westview (1992).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Siekmann, J. H., 'An introduction to unification theory', Formal Techniques in Artificial Intelligence, 369-424, Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland (1990).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    StÅlmarck, G., 'Normalization theorems for full first order classical natural deduction', JSL Vol. 56,No. 1 (1991).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Suppes, P., et al., 'Part I. Interactive theorem proving in CAI courses', University-Level Computer-Assisted Instruction at Stanford: 1968–1980, P. Suppes editor, IMSSS, Stanford University (1981).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Szabo, M. E., The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, M. E. Szabo editor, 68-131, North-Holland (1969).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederic D. Portoraro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations