Enhanced Theorem Reuse by Partial Theory Inclusions

  • Immanuel Normann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4120)


Finding new theorems is essential for the general progress in mathematics. Apart from creating and proving completely new theorems progress can also be achieved by theorem reuse; i.e. by translating theorems from related theories into the target theory and proving its translated premises under which the theorem was proven. This approach is pursued by the ”little theories” and the development graph paradigms. This work suggests an improvement in this direction in two aspects: partial theory inclusions enhances theorem reuse and formula matching to support automated detection of theory inclusions. By representing theory axioms as facts and partial theories (i.e. theorems and their minimal set of premises) as horn clauses, reusable theorems correspond to derived facts such that model generator like KRHyper can be used for this task.


Transitive Closure Horn Clause Proof Obligation Target Theory Partial Theory 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Autexier, S., Hutter, D.: Maintenance of formal software developments by stratified verification (2002), http://www.dfki.de/vse/papers/ah02.ps.gz
  2. 2.
    Autexier, S., Hutter, D., Mossakowski, T., Schairer, A.: The development graph manager MAYA (system description). In: Kirchner, H., Ringeissen, C. (eds.) AMAST 2002. LNCS, vol. 2422, p. 495. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farmer, W.M., Guttman, J.D., Thayer, F.J.: The imps user’s manual. Technical Report M-93B138, The mitre Corporation (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farmer, W., Guttman, J., Thayer, X.: Little theories. In: Kapur, D. (ed.) CADE 1992. LNCS, vol. 607, pp. 567–581. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goguen, J.A., Burstall, R.M.: Introducing institutions. In: Clarke, E., Kozen, D. (eds.) Logic of Programs 1983. LNCS, vol. 164. Springer, Heidelberg (1984)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graf, P., Meyer, C.: Advanced indexing operations on substitution trees. In: Conference on Automated Deduction, pp. 553–567 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Manthey, R., Bry, F.: SATCHMO: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog. In: Lusk, E.L., Overbeek, R.A. (eds.) CADE 1988. LNCS, vol. 310, pp. 415–434. Springer, Heidelberg (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meseguer, J.: General logics. In: Logic Colloquium, vol. 87, pp. 275–329. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Normann, I.: Extended normalization for e-retrieval of formulae. In: Proceedings of Communicating Mathematics in the Digital Era (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mossakowski, K.L.T., Maeder, C., Wölfl, S.: Hets, http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/agbkb/forschung/formal_methods/CoFI/hets/
  11. 11.
    Wernhard, C.: System description: Krhyper (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Immanuel Normann
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer ScienceInternational University Bremen 

Personalised recommendations