Advertisement

Term rewriting induction

  • Uday S. Reddy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 449)

Abstract

An induction method called term rewriting induction is proposed for proving properties of term rewriting systems. It is shown that the Knuth-Bendix completion-based inductive proof procedures construct term rewriting induction proofs. It has been widely held heretofore that these procedures construct proofs by consistency, and cannot be justified as induction methods. Our formulation shows otherwise. Technically, our result goes beyond the earlier ones in that it is independent of the confluence or ground confluence of the rewrite systems involved. This addresses one of the major criticisms of the method raised in recent times.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    L. Bachmair. Proof by consistency. In Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, IEEE, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Bachmair and N. Dershowitz. Completion for rewriting module a congruence. In P. Lescanne, editor, Rewriting Techniques and Applications, pages 192–203, Springer-Verlag, 1987. (Lecture Notes in Comp. Science, Vol 256).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    L. Bachmair, N. Dershowitz, and J. Hsiang. Orderings for equational proofs. In Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pages 346–357, IEEE, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Bündgen and W. Küchlin. Computing ground reducibility and inductively complete positions. In N. Dershowitz, editor, Rewriting Techniques and Appl., pages 59–75, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    N. Dershowitz. Applications of the Knuth-Bendix completion procedure. In Proc. of the Seminaire d'Informatique Theorique, Paris, pages 95–111, December 1982.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    N. Dershowitz. Completion and its applications. In Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures, Academic Press, New York, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    N. Dershowitz. Orderings for term-rewriting systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 17(3):279–301, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    N. Dershowitz and Z. Manna. Proving termination with multiset orderings. Communications of the ACM, 22(8):465–476, August 1979.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. Fay. First-order unification in an equational theory. In Fourth Workshop on Automated Deduction, pages 161–167, Austin, Texas, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    L. Fribourg. A strong restriction of the inductive completion procedure. In Intern. Conf. Aut., Lang. and Program., pages 105–115, Reenes, France, July 1986. (Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 226).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. J. Garland and J. V Guttag. Inductive methods for reasoning about abstract data types. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Languages, pages 219–228, ACM, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. A. Goguen. How to prove inductive hypotheses without induction. In Conf. on Automated Deduction, pages 356–372, Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 87, Jul 1980.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    C. A. R. Hoare. Procedures and parameters: An axiomatic approach. In E. Engeler, editor, Symp. Semantics of Algorithmic Languages, pages 102–116, Springer-Verlag, 1971. (Lect. Notes in Math. Vo. 188).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    G. Huet. Confluent reductions: abstract properties and applications to term rewriting systems. Journal of the ACM, 27(4):797–821, October 1980. (Previous version in Proc. Symp. Foundations of Computer Science, Oct 1977).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    G. Huet and J.-M. Hullot. Proofs by induction in equational theories with constructors. In Symp. on Foundations of computer Science, pages 96–107, IEEE, Lake Placid, NY, October 1980.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    G. Huet and D. C. Oppen. Equations and rewrite rules: A survey. In R. Book, editor, Formal Language Theory: Perspectives and Open Problems, pages 349–405, Academic Press, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J-M. Hullot. Canonical forms and unification. In Conf. on Automated Deduction, pages 318–334, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    J.-P. Jouannaud and H. Kirchner. Completion of a set of rules modulo a set of equations. SIAM J. on Computing, Nov 1986.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J.-P. Jouannaud and E. Kounalis. Automatic proofs by induction in equational theories without constructors. In Symp. on Logic in Computer Science, pages 358–366, IEEE, Cambridge, MA., June 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    D. Kapur and D. R. Musser. Proof by consistency. In Proc. of NSF Workshop on the Rewrite Rule Laboratory, Sep 4–6, 1983, G.E. R&D Center Report GEN 84008, Schenectady, April 1984.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    D. Kapur, P. Narendran, and F. Otto. On Ground-Confluence of Term Rewriting Systems. Technical Report 87-6, General Electric R & D Center, Schenectady, New York, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    D. Kapur, P. Narendran, and H. Zhang. Proof by induction using test sets. In Conf. on Automated Deduction, Oxford, U.K., 1986.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    D. Knuth and P. Bendix. Simple word problems in Universal algebras. In J. Leech, editor, Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, pages 263–297, Pergamon Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    W. Küchlin. Inductive completion by ground proof transformation. In Proc. 1987 MCC Colloquium on Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures, MCC, Austin, Texas, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    D. S. Lankford. A Simple Explanation of Inductionless Induction. Memo MTP-14, Dep. of Mathmatics, Louisiana Tech. Univ., Aug 1981.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    D. R. Musser. On proving inductive properties of abstract data types. In ACM Symp. on Princ. of Program. Languages, pages 154–162, ACM, Las Vegas, 1980.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    U. S. Reddy. Narrowing as the operational semantics of functional languages. In Symp. on Logic Program., pages 138–151, IEEE, Boston, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    U. S. Reddy. Rewriting techniques for program synthesis. In N. Dershowitz, editor, Rewriting Techniques and Appl., pages 388–403, Springer-Verlag, 1989. (LNCS Vol. 355).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    U. S. Reddy. Transformational derivation of programs using the Focus system. In Symp. Practical Software Development Environments, pages 163–172, ACM, December 1988.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    D. Scott. Data types as lattices. SIAM Journal on Computing, 5(3):522–587, Sept. 1976.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    J. R. Slagle. Automated theorem-proving for theories with simplifiers, commutativity and associativity. Journal of the ACM, 21(4):622–642, 1974.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    H. Zhang, D. Kapur, and M. S. Krishnamoorthy. A mechanizable induction principle for equational specifications. In E Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Conf. on Automated Deduction, pages 162–181, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. (LNCS Vol 310).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uday S. Reddy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbana

Personalised recommendations