Advertisement

On the Dynamic Increase of Multiplicities in Matrix Proof Methods for Classical Higher-Order Logic

  • Serge Autexier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3702)

Abstract

A major source of the undecidability of a logic is the number of instances—the so-called multiplicities—of existentially quantified formulas that are required in a proof. We consider the problem in the context of matrix proof methods for classical higher-order logic and present a technique which improves the standard practice of iterative deepening over the multiplicities. We present a mechanism that allows to adjust multiplicities on demand during matrix-based proof search and not only preserves existing substitutions and connections, but additionally adapts them to the parts that result from the increase of the multiplicities.

Keywords

Modal Logic Proof Search Expansion Tree Extensionality Rule Secondary Type 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andrews, P.B.: General models, descriptions, and choice in type theory. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 37(2), 385–397 (1972)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews, P.B.: Theorem proving via general matings. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 28(2), 193–214 (1981)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Autexier, S.: Hierarchical Contextual Reasoning. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barendregt, H.P.: The Lambda Calculus – Its Syntax and Semantics. North Holland, Amsterdam (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bibel, W.: On matrices with connections. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 28(4), 633–645 (1981)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitting, M.: Tableau methods of proof for modal logics. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic XIII, 237–247 (1972)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henkin, L.: Completeness in the theory of types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 15, 81–91 (1950)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Issar, S.: Path-focused duplication: A search procedure for general matings. In: Dietterich, T.S.W. (ed.) Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 90), Menlo Park - Cambridge - London, July 1990, vol. 1, pp. 221–226. AAAI Press / MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller, D.A.: Proofs in Higher-Order Logic. Phd thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1983)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pfenning, F.: Proof Transformation in Higher-Order Logic. Phd thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smullyan, R.M.: First-Order Logic. Ergebnisse der Mathematik, vol. 43. Springer, Berlin (1968)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wallen, L.: Automated proof search in non-classical logics: efficient matrix proof methods for modal and intuitionistic logics. MIT Press series in artificial intelligence (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serge Autexier
    • 1
  1. 1.Saarland University & German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI GmbH)SaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations