Selectively instantiating definitions Matthew Bishop Peter B. Andrews Conference paper First Online: 25 May 2006 DOI :
10.1007/BFb0054272

Part of the
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
book series (LNCS, volume 1421) Cite this paper as: Bishop M., Andrews P.B. (1998) Selectively instantiating definitions. In: Kirchner C., Kirchner H. (eds) Automated Deduction — CADE-15. CADE 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1421. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 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.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant CCR-9624683. This work was supported in part by Intel Corporation through an equipment grant.

References 1.

Peter B. Andrews. Theorem Proving via General Matings.

Journal of the ACM , 28:193–214, 1981.

MATH CrossRef Google Scholar 2.

Peter B. Andrews. An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof . Academic Press, 1986.

3.

Peter B. Andrews. On Connections and Higher-Order Logic.

Journal of Automated Reasoning , 5:257–291, 1989.

MATH CrossRef MathSciNet Google 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.

CrossRef MathSciNet Google 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.

CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 6.

Dave Barker-Plummer. Gazing: An Approach to the Problem of Definition and Lemma Use.

Journal of Automated Reasoning , 8:311–344, 1992.

MATH CrossRef MathSciNet Google 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.

8.

W. W. Bledsoe and Peter Bruell. A Man-Machine Theorem-Proving System.

Artificial Intelligence , 5(1):51–72, 1974.

CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 9.

W. W. Bledsoe and Gohui Feng. Set-Var.

Journal of Automated Reasoning , 11:293–314, 1993.

CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 10.

Alonzo Church. A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types.

Journal of Symbolicogic , 5:56–68, 1940.

MATH MathSciNet Google 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.

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.

13.

Fausto Giunchiglia and Toby Walsh. A Theory of Abstraction.

Artificial Intelligence , 57(2–3):323–389, 1992.

CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 14.

Gerard P. Huet. A Unification Algorithm for Typed λ-Calculus.

Theoretical Computer Science , 1:27–57, 1975.

MATH CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 15.

Ignace I. Kolodner. Fixed Points.

American Mathematical Monthly , 71:906, 1964.

CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 16.

Dale A. Miller. A compact representation of proofs.

Studia Logica , 46(4):347–370, 1987.

MATH CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 17.

D. Pastre. Automatic Theorem Proving in Set Theory.

Artificial Intelligence , 10:1–27, 1978

MATH CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 18.

Frank Pfenning. Proof Transformations in Higher-Order Logic . PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 1987. 156 pp.

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.

20.

D.A. Plaisted. Theorem Proving with Abstraction.

Artificial Intelligence , 16:47–108, 1981.

MATH CrossRef MathSciNet Google Scholar 21.

Dave Plummer. Gazing: Controlling the Use of Rewrite Rules . PhD thesis, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1987.

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.

23.

Larry Wos. The Problem of Definition Expansion and Contraction.

Journal of Automated Reasoning , 3:433–435, 1987.

Google Scholar Authors and Affiliations Matthew Bishop Peter B. Andrews 1. Department of Mathematical Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh USA