On deleting links in semantic graphs

  • Neil V. Murray
  • Erik Rosenthal
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 229)


In [19] we introduced a graphical representation of quantifier-free predicate calculus formulas and a new rule of inference which employs this representation. The new rule is an amalgamation of resolution and Prawitz analysis, which we call path resolution.

Some (but not all) path resolution operations allow the deletion of some links used in the inference and yet preserve the spanning property. We characterize those situations in which links may be so deleted. A spanning-preserving restriction on the inheritance of certain links is also developed.


Theorem Prove Ground Instance Split Graph Entire Graph Connection Graph 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andrews, P.B. Refutations by matings. IEEE Transactions on Computers 25,8 (Aug. 1976), 801–807.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews, P.B. Theorem proving via general matings. JACM 28,2 (April 1981), 193–214.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bibel, W. On matrices with connections. JACM 28,4 (Oct. 1981), 633–645.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bibel, W. A Strong Completeness Result for the Connection Graph Proof Procedure. Technical Report ATP-3-IV-80.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang, C.L. and Lee, R.C.T. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, C.L., and Slagle, J.R. Using rewriting rules for connection graphs to prove theorems. Artificial Intelligence 12 (Aug. 1979), 159–178.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chinlund, T.J., Davis, M., Hineman, P.G., and McIlroy, M.D. Theorem proving by matching. Bell Laboratory, 1964.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark, K. The Synthesis and Verification of Logic Programs. Third Conference on Automated Deduction, August 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, M. and Putnam, H. A computing procedure for quantification theory. JACM, vol. 7 (1960), 201–215.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, M. Eliminating the irrelevant from mechanical proofs. Proc. Symp. of Applied Mathematics 15 (1963), 15–30.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Champeaux, D. Sub-problem finder and instance checker — two cooperating processors for theorem provers. Proc. 4th Workshop on Automated Deduction, Austin, Texas, Feb. 1979, 110–114.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilmore, P.C., A Proof method for quantification theory. IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 4 (1960), 28–35.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henschen, L.G. Theorem proving by covering expressions. J.ACM, 26,3 (July 1979), 385–400.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kowalski, R. A proof procedure using connection graphs. J.ACM 22,4 (Oct. 1975), 572–595.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCharen, J., Overbeek, R. and Wos, L. Problems and experiments for and with automated theorem-proving programs. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-25,8 (Aug. 1976), 773–782.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murray, N.V. Completely non-clausal theorem proving. Artificial Intelligence 18,1 (Jan. 1982), 67–85.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murray, N.V. An experimental theorem prover using fast unification and vertical path graphs. Fourth National Conf. of Canadian Society of Computational Studies of Intelligence, U. of Saskatchewan, May 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murray, N.V. and Rosenthal, E. Semantic graphs. Technical Report 84-12, Department of Computer Science, SUNY at Albany, Nov. 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murray, N.V. and Rosenthal, E. Path Resolution and Semantic Graphs. To appear in the proceedings of EUROCAL '85, Linz Austria, April 1–3, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nilsson, N.J. A production system for automatic deduction. Technical Note 148, SRI International, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prawitz, D. An improved proof procedure. Theoria 26 (1960), 102–139.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robinson, G.A. and Wos, L. Paramodulation and theorem proving in first order theories with equality. Machine Intelligence 4, 1969, Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robinson, J.A. A machine oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J.ACM 12,1 (1965), 23–41.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robinson, J.A. Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 1 (1965), 227–234.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robinson, J.A. ”Theoretical Approaches to Non-Numerical Problem Solving,” Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1970, 2–20.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stickel, M.L. A nonclausal connection-graph resolution theorem-proving program. Proc. AAAI-82 Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Aug. 1982, 229–233.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Waldinger, R. and Manna, Z. A deductive approach to program synthesis. ACM TOPLAS 2,1 (1980), 90–121.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wos, L., Carson, D. and Robinson, G. Efficiency and completeness of the set of support strategy in theorem proving. J.ACM 12,4 (1965), 536–541.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil V. Murray
    • 1
  • Erik Rosenthal
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceState University of New York at AlbanyAlbany

Personalised recommendations