The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs

  • Alan Bundy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 310)


We propose the use of explicit proof plans to guide the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. By representing proof plans as the specifications of LCF-like tactics, [Gordon et al 79], and by recording these specifications in a sorted meta-logic, we are able to reason about the conjectures to be proved and the methods available to prove them. In this way we can build proof plans of wide generality, formally account for and predict their successes and failures, apply them flexibly, recover from their failures, and learn them from example proofs.

We illustrate this technique by building a proof plan based on a simple subset of the implicit proof plan embedded in the Boyer-Moore theorem prover, [Boyer & Moore 79].

Space restrictions have forced us to omit many of the details of our work. These are included in a longer version of this paper which is available from: The Documentation Secretary, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Forrest Hill, Edinburgh EH1 2QL, Scotland.

Key words and phrases

Proof plans inductive proofs theorem proving automatic programming formal methods planning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Boyer & Moore 79]
    R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, 1979. ACM monograph series.Google Scholar
  2. [Bundy & Welhma 81]
    A. Bundy and B. Welham. Using meta-level inference for selective application of multiple rewrite rules in algebraic manipulation. Artificial Intelligence, 16(2):189–212, 1981. Also available as DAI Research Paper 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Bundy 87]
    A. Bundy. The derivation of tactic specifications. Blue Book Note 356, Department of Artificial Intelligence, March 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [Constable et al 86]
    R.L. Constable, S.F. Allen, H.M. Bromley, et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. [Desimone 87]
    R.V. Desimone. Learning control knowledge within an explanation-based learning framework. In I. Bratko and N. Lavrač, editors, Progress in Machine Learning — Proceedings of 2nd European Working Session on Learning, EWSL-87, Bled, Yugoslavia, Sigma Press, May 1987. Also available as DAI Research Paper 321.Google Scholar
  6. [Gordon et al 79]
    M.J. Gordon, A.J. Milner, and C.P. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF — A mechanised logic of computation. Volume 78 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. [Knoblock & Constable 86]
    T. B. Knoblock and R.L. Constable. Formalized metareasoning in type theory. In Proceedings of LICS, pages 237–248, IEEE, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [Silver 84]
    B. Silver. Precondition analysis: learning control information. In Machine Learning 2, Tioga Publishing Company, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. [Stevens 87]
    A. Stevens. A Rational Reconstruction of Boyer-Moore Recursion Analysis. Research Paper forthcoming, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh, 1987. submitted to ECAI-88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Bundy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland

Personalised recommendations