# On fairness of completion-based theorem proving strategies

## Abstract

Fairness is an important concept emerged in theorem proving recently, in particular in the area of completion-based theorem proving. Fairness is a required property for the *search plan* of the given strategy. Intuitively, fairness of a search plan guarantees the generation of a successful derivation if the *inference* mechanism of the strategy indicates that there is one. Thus, the completeness of the inference rules and the fairness of the search plan form the completeness of a theorem proving strategy. A search plan which exhausts the entire search space is obviously fair, albeit grossly inefficient. Therefore, the problem is to reconciliate fairness and efficiency. This problem becomes even more intricate in the presence of *contraction inference rules* — rules that remove data from the data set.

The known definitions of fairness for completion-based methods are designed to ensure the confluence of the resulting system. Thus, a search plan which is fair according to these definitions may force the prover to perform deductions completely irrelevant to prove the intended theorem. In a theorem proving strategy, on the other hand, one is usually only interested in proving a specific theorem. Therefore the notion of fairness should be defined accordingly. In this paper we present a target-oriented definition of fairness for completion, which takes into the account the theorem to be proved and therefore does not require computing all the critical pairs. If the inference rules are complete and the search plan is fair with respect to our definition, then the strategy is complete. Our framework contains also notions of redundancy and contraction. We conclude by comparing our definition of fairness and the related concepts of redundancy and contraction with those in related works.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1]L.Bachmair, N.Dershowitz, J.Hsiang, Orderings for Equational Proofs, in
*Proceedings of the First Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science*, 346–357, Cambridge, MA, June 1986.Google Scholar - [2]L. Bachmair, Proofs Methods for Equational Theories, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL., 1987.Google Scholar
- [3]L. Bachmair, N. Dershowitz and D.A. Plaisted, Completion without failure, in H. Ait-Kaci, M. Nivat (eds.),
*Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures*, Vol. II: Rewriting Techniques, 1–30, Academic Press, New York, 1989.Google Scholar - [4]L.Bachmair, H.Ganzinger, Completion of First-Order Clauses with Equality by Strict Superposition, to appear in M.Okada, S.Kaplan (eds.),
*Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Conditional and Typed Rewriting Systems*, Montreal, Canada, June 1990.Google Scholar - [5]M.P.Bonacina, J.Hsiang, Completion Procedures as Semidecision Procedures, to appear in M.Okada, S.Kaplan (eds.),
*Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Conditional and Typed Rewriting Systems*, Montreal, Canada, June 1990.Google Scholar - [6]N. Dershowitz, Orderings for term-rewriting systems,
*Theoretical Computer Science*, Vol. 17, 279–301, 1982.Google Scholar - [7]N.Dershowitz, J.-P.Jouannaud, Rewrite Systems, Chapter 15, Volume B,
*Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science*, North-Holland, 1989.Google Scholar - [8]N.Dershowitz, A Maximal-Literal Unit Strategy for Horn Clauses, to appear in M.Okada, S.Kaplan (eds.),
*Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Conditional and Typed Rewriting Systems*, Montreal, Canada, June 1990.Google Scholar - [9]J. Hsiang, M. Rusinowitch, On word problems in equational theories, in Th.Ottman (ed.),
*Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Automata, Languages and Programming*, Karlsruhe, West Germany, July 1987, Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 267, 54–71, 1987.Google Scholar - [10]G. Huet, A Complete Proof of Correctness of the Knuth-Bendix Completion Algorithm,
*Journal of Computer and System Sciences*, Vol. 23, 11–21, 1981.Google Scholar - [11]D.E. Knuth, P. Bendix, Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebras, in J. Leech (ed.),
*Proceedings of the Conference on Computational Problems in Abstract Algebras*, Oxford, England, 1967, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 263–298, 1970.Google Scholar - [12]E.Kounalis, M.Rusinowitch, On Word Problems in Horn Theories, in E.Lusk, R.Overbeek (eds.),
*Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Automated Deduction*, 527–537, Argonne, Illinois, May 1988, Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 310, 1988.Google Scholar - [13]M.Rusinowitch, Theorem-proving with resolution and superposition: an extension of Knuth and Bendix procedure as a complete set of inference rules, Thèse d'Etat, Université de Nancy, 1987.Google Scholar
- [14]R.Socher-Ambrosius, How to Avoid the Derivation of Redundant Clauses in Reasoning Systems, to appear in
*Journal of Automated Reasoning*, 1990.Google Scholar