On sets, types, fixed points, and checkerboards

  • Peter B. Andrews
  • Matthew Bishop
Invited Lectures
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1071)

Abstract

Most current research on automated theorem proving is concerned with proving theorems of first-order logic. We discuss two examples which illustrate the advantages of using higher-order logic in certain contexts. For some purposes type theory is a much more convenient vehicle for formalizing mathematics than axiomatic set theory. Even theorems of first-order logic can sometimes be proven more expeditiously in higher-order logic than in first-order logic. We also note the need to develop automatic theorem-proving methods which may produce proofs which do not have the subformula property.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Peter B. Andrews, An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof, Academic Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peter B. Andrews, Matthew Bishop, Sunil Issar, Dan Nesmith, Frank Pfenning, Hongwei Xi, TPS: A Theorem Proving System for Classical Type Theory, Journal of Automated Reasoning (to appear).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grzegorz Bancerek, “The Mutilated Chessboard Problem — checked by Mizar,” in The QED Workshop II, edited by Roman Matuszewski, 1995, 43–45. Available from http://www.mcs.anl.gov/qed/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robert Boyer, Ewing Lusk, William McCune, Ross Overbeek, Mark Stickel, and Lawrence Wos, Set Theory in First-Order Logic: Clauses for Gödel's Axioms, Journal of Automated Reasoning 2 (1986), 287–327.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samuel R. Buss, On Gödel's Theorem on Lengths of Proofs I: Number of Lines and Speedup for Arithmetic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (1994), 737–756.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alonzo Church, A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types, Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (1940), 56–68.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    James Glanz, Computer Scientists Rethink Their Discipline's Foundations, Science 269 (September 1995), 1363–1364.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurt Gödel, Über die Länge von Beweisen, Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums (1936), 23–24. Translated in [10], pp. 396–399.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurt Gödel, The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and of the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis with the Axioms of Set Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1940.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kurt Gödel, Collected Works, Volume I, Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seth Lloyd, Quantum-Mechanical Computers, Scientific American 273 (October 1995), 140–145.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    John McCarthy. A Tough Nut for Proof Procedures, Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project Memo No. 16, 1964. Available from http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    John McCarthy. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/nut.html.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    John McCarthy, “The Mutilated Checkerboard in Set Theory,” in The QED Workshop II, edited by Roman Matuszewski, 1995, 25–26. Available from http://www.mcs.anl.gov/qed/index.html.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    William McCune, Another Crack in a Tough Nut, Association for Automated Reasoning Newsletter 31 (1995), 1–3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richard Statman, Bounds for Proof Search and Speed-up in the Predicate Calculus, Annals of Mathematical Logic 15 (1978), 225–287.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sakthi Subramanian, An Interactive Solution to the n x n Mutilated Checkerboard Problem, Journal of Logic and Computation (to appear).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomas E. Uribe and Mark E. Stickel, “Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams and the Davis-Putnam Procedure,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Constraints in Computational Logics, edited by J. P. Jouannaud, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 845, Springer-Verlag, 1994, 34–49.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larry Wos, Ross Overbeek, Ewing Lusk, Jim Boyle, Automated Reasoning. Introduction and Applications, Prentice Hall, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. Andrews
    • 1
  • Matthew Bishop
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematics DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations