Advertisement

Combining unification algorithms for confined regular equational theories

  • Kathy Yelick
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 202)

Abstract

This paper presents a method for combining equational unification algorithms to handle terms containing "mixed" sets of function symbols. For example, given one algorithm for unifying associative-commutative operators, and another for unifying commutative operators, our algorithm provides a method for unifying terms containing both kinds of operators. We restrict our attention to a class of equational theories which we call confined regular theories. The algorithms is proven to terminate with a complete and correct set of E-unifiers. An implementation has been done as part of a larger system for reasoning about equational theories.

Keywords

Function Symbol Equational Theory Unification Algorithm Regular Theory Congruence Relation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ballantyne 81]
    A. M. Ballantyne and D. S. Lankford, "New Decision Algorithms for Finitely Presented Commutative Semigroups," in Computers & Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 7, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1981, pp. 159–165.Google Scholar
  2. [Birkhoff 35]
    G. Birkhoff, "On the Structure of Abstract Algebras," Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., Vol. 31, 1935, pp. 433–454.Google Scholar
  3. [Dershowitz 83a]
    N. Dershowitz, "Computing with Rewrite Systems," Technical Report ATR-83(8478)-1, Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA, January 1983.Google Scholar
  4. [Dershowitz 83b]
    N. Dershowitz, N. A. Josephson, J. Hsiang, and D. Plaisted, "Associative-Commutative Rewriting," 8th IJCAI, Karisruhe, West Germany, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [Fages 83]
    F. Fages and G. Huet, "Complete Sets of Unifiers and Matchers in Equational Theories," Trees in Algebra and Programming, CAAP '83, Proceedings of the 8th Colloquium, L'Aquila, Italy, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, March 1983, pp. 205–220.Google Scholar
  6. [Fages 84]
    F. Fages, "Associative-Commutative Unification," 7th CADE, Napa Valley, Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp. 194–208.Google Scholar
  7. [Fay 79]
    M. Fay, "First-order Unification in an Equational Theory", Proc. 4th Workshop on Automated Deduction, Austin, TX, February 1979, pp. 161–167.Google Scholar
  8. [Forgaard 84a]
    R. Forgaard and J. V. Guttag, "REVE: A Term Rewriting System Generator with Failure-Resistant Knuth-Bendix," Proc. of an NSF Workshop on the Rewrite Rule Laboratory, Sept. 6–9, 1983, General Electric Corporate Research and Development Report No. 84GEN008, Schenectady, NY, April 1984, pp. 5–31.Google Scholar
  9. [Forgaard 84b]
    R. Forgaard, "A Program for Generating and Analyzing Term Rewriting Systems," Master's Thesis, MIT Lab. for Computer Science, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [Fribourg 84]
    L. Fribourg, "Oriented Equational Clauses as a Programming Language", ICALP, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. [Goguen 79]
    J. A. Goguen and J. J. Tardo, "An Introduction to OBJ: A Language for Writing and Testing Formal Algebraic Program Specifications," Proc. Specification of Reliable Software, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, April 1979, pp. 170–189.Google Scholar
  12. [Goguen 80]
    J. A. Goguen, "How to Prove Algebraic Inductive Hypotheses Without Induction, With Applications to the Correctness of Data Type Implemention," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 87: Proc. 5th Conf. on Automated Deduction, Les Arcs, France, Springer-Verlag, New York, July 1980, pp. 356–373.Google Scholar
  13. [Grätzer 78]
    G. Grätzer, Universal Algebra, Springer-Verlag, 1969, 1978.Google Scholar
  14. [Hsiang 83]
    J. Hsiang and N. Dershowitz, "Rewrite Methods for Clausal and Non-Clausal Theorem Proving," Proc. 10th EATCS Intl. Colloq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Barcelona, 1983, pp. 331–346.Google Scholar
  15. [Huet 80]
    G. Huet and D. C. Oppen, "Equations and Rewrite Rules: A Survey," in R. Book (Ed.), Formal Language Theory: Perspectives and Open Problems, Academic Press, New York, 1980, pp. 349–405.Google Scholar
  16. [Huet 82]
    G. Huet and J. M. Hullot, "Proofs by Induction in Equational Theories with Constructors," Journal of the ACM 25, pp. 239–266, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. [Hullot 80]
    J. M. Hullot, "Canonical Forms and Unification," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 87: Proc. 5th Conf. on Automated Deduction, Les Arcs, France, Springer-Verlag, New York, July 1980, pp. 318–334.Google Scholar
  18. [Jouannaud 83]
    J.-P. Jouannaud, C. Kirchner, and H. Kirchner, "Incremental Construction of Unification Algorithms in Equational Theories," Proc. 10th EATCS Intl. Colloq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming, Barcelona, 1983, pp. 361–373.Google Scholar
  19. [Jouannaud 84]
    J. P. Jouannaud and H. Kirchner, "Completion of a Set of Rules Modulo a Set of Equations," Technical Note, SRI Intl. Computer Science Laboratory, Menio Park, CA, April 1984.Google Scholar
  20. [Kapur 84]
    D. Kapur and D. R. Musser, "Proof by Consistency," Proc. of an NSF Workshop on the Rewrite Rule Laboratory, Sept. 6–9, 1983, General Electric Corporate Research and Development Report No. 84GEN008, Schenectady, NY, April 1984, pp. 245–267.Google Scholar
  21. [Kirchner 81]
    C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner, "Solving Equations in the Signed Trees Theory," Technical Report 81-R-056, Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy, UER de Mathematiques, Universite de Nancy l, 54037 Nancy Cedex, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. [Kirchner 84a]
    H. Kirchner, "A General Inductive Completion Algorithm and Application to Abstract Data Types," Proc. 7th CADE, Napa Valley, CA, Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp. 282–302.Google Scholar
  23. [Kirchner 84b]
    C. Kirchner, "A New Equational Unification Method: A Generalisation of Martelli-Montanari's Algorithm," CADE, 1984.Google Scholar
  24. [Kirchner 84c]
    C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner, private communication, 1984.Google Scholar
  25. [Knuth 70]
    D. E. Knuth and P. B. Bendix, "Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebras," in J. Leech (Ed.), Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, Pergamon, Oxford, 1970, pp. 263–297.Google Scholar
  26. [Kowalski 74]
    R. A. Kowalski, "Predicate Logic as a Programming Language," Proc. IFIP-74 Congress, North-Holland, 1974, pp. 569–574.Google Scholar
  27. [Kownacki 84]
    R. W. Kownacki, "Semantic Checking of Formal Specifications," Master's Thesis, MIT Lab. for Computer Science, June 1984.Google Scholar
  28. [Lankford 84]
    D. Lankford, G. Butler, and B. Brady, "Abelian Group Unification Algorithms for Elementary Terms," Proc. of an NSF Workshop on the Rewrite Rule Laboratory, Sept. 6–9, 1983, General Electric Corporate Research and Development Report No. 84GEN008, Schenectady, NY, April 1984, pp. 301–318.Google Scholar
  29. [Lescanne 83]
    P. Lescanne, "Computer Experiments with the REVE Term Rewriting System Generator," Proc. 10th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, Austin, TX, January 1983, pp. 99–108.Google Scholar
  30. [Liskov 81]
    B. Liskov, R. Atkinson, T. Bloom, E. Moss, J. C. Schaffert, R. Scheifler, A. Snyder, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 114: CLU Reference Manual, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  31. [Livesey 76]
    M. Livesey and J. Siekmann, "Unification of A + C Terms (Bags) and A + C + I Terms (Sets)," Technical Report Interner Bericht Nr. 3/76, Institut für Informatik I, Universität Karlsruhe, 1976.Google Scholar
  32. [Martelli 82]
    A. Martelli and U. Montanari, "An Efficient Unification Algorithm," ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4(2):258–282, April 1982.Google Scholar
  33. [Milner 78]
    R. Milner, "A Theory of Polymorphism in Programming," Journal of Computer and System Sciences 17, pp. 348–375, 1978.Google Scholar
  34. [Nelson 79]
    G. Nelson and D. Oppen, "Simplification by Cooperating Decision Procedures," ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1(2):245–257, Oct 1979.Google Scholar
  35. [Peterson 81]
    G. E. Peterson and M. E. Stickel, "Complete Sets of Reductions for Some Equational Theories," Journal of the ACM 28(2):233–264, April 1981.Google Scholar
  36. [Plotkin 72]
    G. D. Plotkin, "Building-in Equational Theories," in Machine Intelligence, Vol. 7, Halsted Press, 1972, pp. 73–90.Google Scholar
  37. [Robinson 65]
    J. A. Robinson, "A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle," Journal of the ACM 12(1):23–41, January 1965.Google Scholar
  38. [Shostak 84]
    R. E. Shostak, "Deciding Combinations of Theories," Journal of the ACM 31(1):1–12, January 1984.Google Scholar
  39. [Siekman 84]
    J. Siekman, "Universal Unification," Proc. 7th CADE, NAPA Valley, CA, Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
  40. [Slagle 74]
    J. R. Slagle, "Automated Theorem-Proving for Theories with Simplifiers, Commutativity and Associativity," JACM 21(4):622–642, October 1974.Google Scholar
  41. [Yelick 85]
    K. A. Yelick, "A Generalized Approach to Equational Unification," Master's Thesis, MIT Lab. for Computer Science, 1985. (To appear.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathy Yelick
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Computer ScienceMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations