Constructive matching methodology: Formally creative or Intelligent inductive theorem proving?

  • Marta Fraňová
  • Yves Kodratoff
  • Martine Gross
Methodologies
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 689)

Abstract

In this paper we explain why, and in what sense, the methodology for inductive theorem proving (IFTP) we develop is creative and we explain why our methodology cannot be said to be “intelligent”, as a human could be, and nevertheless it is suitable for a user-independent automatization of ITP.

Keywords

Induction Hypothesis Inference Rule Atomic Formula Universal Quantifier Induction Scheme 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 3.
    R. S. Boyer, J S. Moore: A Computational Logic; Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    R. S. Boyer, Y. Yu: Automated Correctness Proofs of Machine Code Programs for a Commercial Microprocessor; in: CADE 11 Proc, Springer, 1992, 416–430.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    R. L. Constable, T.B. Knoblock, J.L. Bates: Writing Programs that construct Proofs; Journal of Automated Reasoning, vol. 1, no. 3, 1985, 285–326.Google Scholar
  4. 9.
    M. Franova, A. Galton: Failure Analysis in Constructive Matching Methodology: A Step Towards Autonomous Program Synthesizing Systems; in: R. Trappl, (ed): Cybernetics and System Research '92; 1553–1560.Google Scholar
  5. 10.
    M. Franova, Y. Kodratoff, M. Gross: Constructive matching methodology: an extension and an application to a planning problem; forthcoming, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    an extended version of this paper; forthcoming, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    M. Franova, Y. Kodratoff: Practical Problems in the Automatization of Inductive Theorem Proving; Rapport de Recherche No.752, L.R.I., 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    M. Franova, Y. Kodratoff: How to Clear a Block with Constructive Matching methodology; in: Proc. IJCAI'91; Morgan Kaufmann, 1991, 232–337.Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    M. Franova, Y. Kodratoff: Predicate Synthesis from Formal Specifications; in: B. Neumann, (ed.): ECAI 92 proceedings, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1992, 87–91.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    M. Franova, Y. Kodratoff: Predicate Synthesis from Formal Specifications: Using Mathematical Induction for Finding the Preconditions of Theorems; to appear in proceedings of NIL'92, available as Rapport de Recherche No.781, L.R.I., 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    M. Franova, Y. Kodratoff: Simplifying Implications in Inductive Theorem Proving: Why and How?; Rapport de Recherche No.788, L.R.I., 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 17.
    M. Franova, L. Popelinsky: Constructing formal specifications of predicates; forthcoming, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    M. Franova: Program Synthesis and Constructive proofs Obtained by Beth's tableaux; in: R. Trappl, (ed): Cybernetics and System Research 2; 1984, 715–720.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    M. Franova: CM-strategy; A Methodology for Inductive Theorem Proving or Constructive Well-Generalized Proofs; in Proc. IJCAI'85, 1214–1220.Google Scholar
  15. 20.
    M. Franova: Fundamentals of a new methodology for Program Synthesis from Formal Specifications: CM-construction of atomic formulae; Thesis, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    M. Franova: Precomas 0.3 User Guide; Rap. de Rech. No.524, L.R.I., 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    M. Franova: A constructive proof for prime factorization theorem: A result of putting it together in constructive matching methodology; R.R. No.780, L.R.I., 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    Franova: PRECOMAS: An Implementation of CM; Proc. of ISSAC'90, 16–23.Google Scholar
  19. 24.
    M. Franova: Generating induction hypotheses by Constructive Matching methodology for ITP and PS revisited; Rapport de Recherche No.647, L.R.I., 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 25.
    H. Kirchner: Preuves par Complétion; Thesis, 21 June, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    Z. Manna, R.Waldinger: A Deductive Approach to Program Synthesis; ACM Trans. on Prog. Languages and Systems, Vol. 2., No.1, January, 1980, 90–121.Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    Z. Manna, R. Waldinger: How to Clear a Block: A Theory of Plans; Journal of Automated Reasoning 3, 1987, 343–377.Google Scholar
  23. 29.
    G. Polya: How to solve it; 1957.Google Scholar
  24. 30.
    T. Skolem: The foundations of elementary mathematic established by means of the recursive mode of thought, without the use of apparent variables ranging over infinite domains; in: J. van Heijenoort: From Frege to Godel; 1967, 302–334.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Fraňová
    • 1
  • Yves Kodratoff
    • 1
  • Martine Gross
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRS & Université Paris SudOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations