A resolution principle for clauses with constraints

  • Hans-Jürgen Bürckert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 449)


We introduce a general scheme for handling clauses whose variables are constrained by an underlying constraint theory. In general, constraints can be seen as quantifier restrictions as they filter out the values that can be assigned to the variables of a clause (or an arbitrary formulae with restricted universal or existential quantifier) in any of the models of the constraint theory. We present a resolution principle for clauses with constraints, where unification is replaced by testing constraints for satisfiability over the constraint theory. We show that this constrained resolution is sound and complete in that a set of clauses with constraints is unsatisfiable over the constraint theory iff we can deduce a constrained empty clause for each model of the constraint theory, such that the empty clauses constraint is satisfiable in that model. We show also that we cannot require a better result in general, but we discuss certain tractable cases, where we need at most finitely many such empty clauses or even better only one of them as it is known in classical resolution, sorted resolution or resolution with theory unification.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. K.H. Bläsius, H.-J. Bürckert (eds.). Deduction Systems in Artificial Intelligence. Horwood, Chichester, 1989Google Scholar
  2. R.J. Brachman, J.G. Schmolze. An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System. Cognitive Science 9(2), 171–216, 1985.Google Scholar
  3. W. Buntine, H.-J. Bürckert. On Solving Equations and Disequations. SEKI-Report SR-89-03, Universität Kaiserslautern, 1989Google Scholar
  4. H.-J. Bürckert. Lazy Theory Unification in Prolog: An Extension of the Warren Abstract Machine. Proc. of German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, Springer Informatik-Fachberichte 124, 277–288, 1986Google Scholar
  5. H.-J. Bürckert. Solving Disequations in Equational Theories. Proc. of Conf. on Automated Deduction, Springer LNCS 310, 517–526, 1988Google Scholar
  6. H.-J. Bürckert. A Resolution Principle for a Logic with Restricted Quantifiers. Dissertation, in prep., 1990Google Scholar
  7. C.-L. Chang, R.C.-T. Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, 1973Google Scholar
  8. A. Colmerauer. Equations and Inequations on Finite and Infinite Trees. Proc. of Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 85–99, 1984Google Scholar
  9. M. Dincbas, P. van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, A. Aggoun, T. Graf, F. Berthin. The Constraint Logic Programming Language CHIP. Proc. of Conf. on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, 1988Google Scholar
  10. A. Frisch. A General Framework for Sorted Deduction: Fundamenrtal Results on Hybrid Reasoning. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 126–136, 1989Google Scholar
  11. J. Gallier, S. Raatz. SLD-Resolution Methods for Horn Clauses with Equality Based on E-Unification. Proc. of Symp. on Logic Programming, 1986Google Scholar
  12. J. Gallier. Logic for Computer Science: Foundations of Automatic Theorem Proving. Harper and Row, 1986Google Scholar
  13. M.R. Genesereth, N.J. Nilsson. Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 1987Google Scholar
  14. J.A. Goguen, J. Meseguer. Equalities, Types, Modules, and Generics for Logic Programming. J. of Logic Programming 1, 179–210, 1984Google Scholar
  15. M. Höhfeld, G. Smolka. Definite Relations over Constraint Languages. LILOG-Report 53, IBM Deutschland, 1988Google Scholar
  16. G. Huet. Constrained Resolution — A Complete Method for Higher Order Logic. Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western University, 1972Google Scholar
  17. J. Jaffar, J.-L. Lassez. Constrained Logic Programming. Proc. of ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, 111–119, 1987Google Scholar
  18. J. Jaffar, J.-L. Lassez, M. Maher. Logic Programming Scheme. In: Logic Programming: Functions, Relations, Equations (eds. D. De Groot, G. Lindstrom), Prentice Hall, 1986Google Scholar
  19. C. Kirchner (ed.). Special Issue on Unification. J. of Symbolic Computation, 1989Google Scholar
  20. R. Kowalski. Logic for Problem Solving. North-Holland, 1979Google Scholar
  21. J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer, 1987Google Scholar
  22. D.W. Loveland. Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis. North-Holland, 1978Google Scholar
  23. B. Nebel. Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. Dissertation, Universität Saarbrücken, 1989Google Scholar
  24. A. Oberschelp. Untersuchungen zur mehrsortigen Quantorenlogik (in German). Mathematische Annalen 145, 297–333, 1962Google Scholar
  25. H.J. Ohlbach. The Semantic Clause Graph Procedure — A First Overview. Proc. of German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, Springer Informatik-Fachberichte 124, 218–229, 1986Google Scholar
  26. G. Plotkin. Building in Equational Theories. Machine Intelligence 7, 1972Google Scholar
  27. J.A. Robinson. A Machine Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle. Journal of the ACM 12(1), 1965Google Scholar
  28. M. Schmidt-Schauß. Computational Aspects of an Order-Sorted Logic with Term Declarations. Springer LNAI 395, 1989Google Scholar
  29. J.R. Shoenfield. Mathematical Logic. Addison Wesley, 1967Google Scholar
  30. J.H. Siekmann. Unification Theory — A Survey. In: Special Issue on Unification (ed. C. Kirchner), J. of Symbolic Computation, 1989Google Scholar
  31. G. Smolka. Logic Programming over Polymorphically Order-Sorted Types. Dissertation, Universität Kaiserslautern, 1989Google Scholar
  32. G. Smolka, W. Nutt, J.A. Goguen, J. Meseguer. Order-Sorted Equational Computation. In: Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures (eds. H. Ait-Kaci, M. Nivat). Prentice Hall, 1989Google Scholar
  33. M.E. Stickel. Automated Deduction by Theory Resolution. J. of Automated Reasoning 1(4), 1985Google Scholar
  34. C. Walther. A Many-Sorted Calculus Based on Resolution and Paramodulation. Pitman & Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Research Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1987Google Scholar
  35. L. Wos, G. Robinson. Paramodulation and the Set of Support. Proc. of Symp. on Automated Demonstration, Springer, 1970Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Jürgen Bürckert
    • 1
  1. 1.DFKI, Project Group AKA-WINOKaiserslauternFR Germany

Personalised recommendations