# Selectively instantiating definitions

## Abstract

When searching for proofs of theorems which contain definitions, it is a significant problem to decide which instances of the definitions to instantiate. We describe a method called *dual instantiation*, which is a partial solution to the problem in the context of the connection method; the same solution may also be adaptable to other search procedures. Dual instantiation has been implemented in TPS, a theorem prover for classical type theory, and we provide some examples of theorems that have been proven using this method. Dual instantiation has the desirable properties that the search for a proof cannot possibly fail due to insufficient instantiation of definitions, and that the natural deduction proof which results from a successful search will contain no unnecessary instantiations of definitions. Furthermore, the time taken by a proof search using dual instantiation is in general comparable to the time taken by a search in which exactly the required instances of each definition have been instantiated. We also describe how this technique can be applied to the problem of instantiating set variables.

## Keywords

Theorem Prove Automate Reasoning Predicate Symbol Automate Deduction Plan Line## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.Peter B. Andrews. Theorem Proving via General Matings.
*Journal of the ACM*, 28:193–214, 1981.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.Peter B. Andrews.
*An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof*. Academic Press, 1986.Google Scholar - 3.Peter B. Andrews. On Connections and Higher-Order Logic.
*Journal of Automated Reasoning*, 5:257–291, 1989.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 4.Peter B. Andrews, Matthew Bishop, Sunil Issar, Dan Nesmith, Frank Pfenning, and Hongwei Xi. TPS: A Theorem Proving System for Classical Type Theory.
*Journal of Automated Reasoning*, 16:321–353, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 5.Sidney C. Bailin and Dave Barker-Plummer. Z-match: An Inference Rule for Incrementally Elaborating Set Instantiations.
*Journal of Automated Reasoning*, 11:391–428, 1993. Errata: JAR 12:411–412, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 6.Dave Barker-Plummer. Gazing: An Approach to the Problem of Definition and Lemma Use.
*Journal of Automated Reasoning*, 8:311–344, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 7.W. W. Bledsoe. Using Examples to Generate Instantiations of Set Variables. In
*Proceedings of IJCAI-83, Karlsruhe, Germany*, pages 892–901, Aug 8–12, 1983.Google Scholar - 8.W. W. Bledsoe and Peter Bruell. A Man-Machine Theorem-Proving System.
*Artificial Intelligence*, 5(1):51–72, 1974.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 9.W. W. Bledsoe and Gohui Feng. Set-Var.
*Journal of Automated Reasoning*, 11:293–314, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 10.Alonzo Church. A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types.
*Journal of Symbolicogic*, 5:56–68, 1940.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 11.Fausto Giunchiglia and Adolfo Villafiorita. ABSFOL: a Proof Checker with Abstraction. In M.A. McRobbie and J.K. Slaney, editors,
*CADE-13: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Automated Deduction*, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1104, pages 136–140. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar - 12.Fausto Giunchiglia and Toby Walsh. Theorem Proving with Definitions. In
*Proceedings of AISB 89*, Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 1989.Google Scholar - 13.Fausto Giunchiglia and Toby Walsh. A Theory of Abstraction.
*Artificial Intelligence*, 57(2–3):323–389, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 14.Gerard P. Huet. A Unification Algorithm for Typed λ-Calculus.
*Theoretical Computer Science*, 1:27–57, 1975.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 15.Ignace I. Kolodner. Fixed Points.
*American Mathematical Monthly*, 71:906, 1964.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 16.Dale A. Miller. A compact representation of proofs.
*Studia Logica*, 46(4):347–370, 1987.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 17.D. Pastre. Automatic Theorem Proving in Set Theory.
*Artificial Intelligence*, 10:1–27, 1978zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 18.Frank Pfenning.
*Proof Transformations in Higher-Order Logic*. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987. 156 pp.Google Scholar - 19.D.A. Plaisted. Abstraction Mappings in Mechanical Theorem Proving. In
*5th Conference on Automated Deduction*, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 87, pages 264–280. Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar - 20.D.A. Plaisted. Theorem Proving with Abstraction.
*Artificial Intelligence*, 16:47–108, 1981.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 21.Dave Plummer.
*Gazing: Controlling the Use of Rewrite Rules*. PhD thesis, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1987.Google Scholar - 22.K. Warren. Implementation of a Definition Expansion Mechanism in a Connection Method Theorem Prover. Master's thesis, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, Univ. of Edinburgh, 1987.Google Scholar
- 23.Larry Wos. The Problem of Definition Expansion and Contraction.
*Journal of Automated Reasoning*, 3:433–435, 1987.Google Scholar