On word problems in equational theories
The Knuth-Bendix procedure for word problems in universal algebra is known to be very effective when it is applicable. However, the procedure will fail if it generates equations which cannot be oriented into rules (i.e., the system is not noetherian), or if it generates infinitely many rules (i.e., the system is not confluent). In 1981 Huet showed that even if the system is not confluent, the Knuth-Bendix procedure still yields a semi-decision procedure for word problems, provided that every equation can be oriented. In this paper we show that even if some equations are not orientable, the Knuth-Bendix procedure can still be modified into a reasonably efficient semi-decision procedure for word problems in equational theories. Thus, we have lifted the noetherian requirement in the Knuth-Bendix procedure. Several confluence results, extensions, and experiments are given. So are some comparisons with related work.
The proof of completeness, which is an interesting subject by itself, employs a new proof technique which utilizes a notion of transfinite semantic trees designed for proving refutational completeness of theorem proving methods in general.
The outline of the paper is as follows: Section 1 briefly introduces term rewriting. The unfailing Knuth-Bendix procedure and confluence results are given in Section 2, together with some discussions and comparisons. Section 3 extends the results to a more general theory which includes inequalities. Simplification strategies are given in Section 4. In Section 5 we present the completeness proofs, as well as a framework of theorem proving strategies which captures the deletion strategies and fairness of search plans. Section 6 describes an implementation with some experimental results. Section contains some comparisons and discussions.
Research reported in this paper is supported in part by the NSF grant DCS-8401624 and the Greco de Programmation of France.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [BDH86]L. Bachmair, N. Dershowitz and J. Hsiang, Orderings for Equational Proofs, Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Boston, June 1986.Google Scholar
- [Bro74]T. Brown, “A Structured Design Method for Specialized Proof Procedures”, Ph.D. Thesis, Cal Tech., 1974.Google Scholar
- [ChL73]C. L. Chang and C. T. Lee, Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
- [Der82]N. Dershowitz, “Orderings for Term Rewriting Systems”, J.TCS, 17, 3 (1982), 279–301.Google Scholar
- [For84]R. Forgaard, “A Program for Generating and Analyzing Term Rewriting Systems”, Master's Thesis, MIT Lab. for Computer Science, 1984.Google Scholar
- [Fri85]L. Fribourg, “SLOG: A Logic Programming Language Interpreter Based on Clausal Superposition and Rewriting”, Symposium on Logic Programming, Boston, July, 1985, 172–184.Google Scholar
- [Hsi85]J. Hsiang, “Two Results in Term Rewriting Theorem Proving”, Proc. of 1st International Conference in Rewrite Techniques and Applications, Dijon, May, 1985.Google Scholar
- [HsR86]J. Hsiang and M. Rusinowitch, “A New Method for Establishing Refutational Completeness in Theorem Proving”, 8th CADE, Oxford, England, 1986, 141–152.Google Scholar
- [HuL78]G. Huet and D. S. Lankford, “On the Uniform Halting Problem for Term Rewriting Systems”, Report 283, INRIA, 1978.Google Scholar
- [JLR82]J. P. Jouannaud, P. Lescanne and F. Reinig, “Recursive Decomposition Ordering”, Conf. on Formal Description of Programming Concepts II, 1982, 331–346.Google Scholar
- [KnB70]D. E. Knuth and P. B. Bendix, “Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebras”, in Computational Algebra, J. Leach, (ed.), Pergamon Press, 1970, 263–297.Google Scholar
- [KoH69]R. A. Kowalski and P. Hayes, “Semantic Trees in Automatic Theorem Proving”, in Machine Intelligence, vol. 5, B. Meltzer and D. Michie, (eds.), American Elsevier, 1969, 181–201.Google Scholar
- [Kow70]R. Kowalski, “Search Strategies for Theorem Proving”, in Machine Intelligence, vol. 5, B. Meltzer and D. Michie, (eds.), American Elsevier, 1970, 181–201.Google Scholar
- [Lan75]D. S. Lankford, “Canonical Inference”, Report ATP-32, Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1975.Google Scholar
- [LaB77]D. S. Lankford and A. M. Ballantyne, “Decision Procedure for Simple Equational Theories with Commutative-Associative Axioms”, Report ATP-39, Univ. of TExas at Austin, 1977.Google Scholar
- [Mza86]J. Mzali, “Methodes de Filtrage Equationnel et de Preuve Automatique de Theoremes”, These de Doctorat de l'Universite de Nancy I, 1986.Google Scholar
- [Ped85]J. Pedersen, “Obtaining Complete Sets of Reductions and Equations without using Special Unification Algorithms”, Unpublished manuscript, 1985.Google Scholar
- [Pla78]D. A. Plaisted, “A Recursively Defined Ordering for Proving Termination of Term Rewriting Systems”, UIUCDCS-R-78-943, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1978.Google Scholar
- [Pla85]D. Plaisted, “Private Communication”,, 1985.Google Scholar
- [Sak85]K. Sakai, “Knuth-Bendix Algorithm for Thue System Based on Kachinuki Ordering”, Technical Report, 0087, ICOT, 1985.Google Scholar
- “Assoc. of Automated Reasoning Newsletter”,, 1985.Google Scholar