Inductive Decidability Using Implicit Induction
Decision procedures are widely used in automated reasoning tools in order to reason about data structures. In applications, many conjectures fall outside the theory handled by a decision procedure. Often, reasoning about user-defined functions on those data structures is needed. For this, inductive reasoning has to be employed. In this work, classes of function definitions and conjectures are identified for which inductive validity can be automatically decided using implicit induction methods and decision procedures for an underlying theory. The class of equational conjectures considered in this paper significantly extends the results of Kapur & Subramaniam (CADE, 2000) , which were obtained using explicit induction schemes. Firstly, nonlinear conjectures can be decided automatically. Secondly, function definitions can use other defined functions in their definitions, thus allowing mutually recursive functions and decidable conjectures about them. Thirdly, conjectures can have general terms from the decidable theory on inductive positions. These contributions are crucial for successfully integrating inductive reasoning into decision procedures, thus enabling their use in push-button mode in applications including verification and program analysis.
KeywordsDecidable Theory Decision Procedure Function Symbol Inductive Reasoning Recursive Function
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
- 2.Bachmair, L.: Proof by consistency in equational theories. In: Proc. LICS 1988, pp. 228–233 (1988)Google Scholar
- 5.Falke, S., Kapur, D.: Implicit induction methods and decision procedures. Technical Report TR-CS-2006-04, Department of Computer Science, University of New Mexico (2006), Available at: http://www.cs.unm.edu/research/
- 16.Kapur, D., Subramaniam, M.: Automatic generation of simple lemmas from recursive definitions using decision procedures – preliminary report. In: Saraswat, V.A. (ed.) ASIAN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2896, pp. 125–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
- 17.Küchlin, W.: Inductive completion by ground proof transformation. In: Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures, vol. 2, pp. 211–244. Academic Press, London (1989)Google Scholar
- 18.Musser, D.R.: On proving inductive properties of abstract data types. In: Proc. POPL 1980, pp. 154–162 (1980)Google Scholar
- 19.Reddy, U.S.: Term rewriting induction. In: Stickel, M.E. (ed.) CADE 1990. LNCS, vol. 449, pp. 162–177. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar