Advertisement

The GAZER theorem prover

  • Dave Barker-Plummer
  • Alex Rothenberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 607)

Abstract

We describe GAZER theorem proving system which was designed as a testbed for developing ideas about choosing which definitions and lemmas to use in the search for a proof. GAZER is a sequent calculus based system for first-order logic. The main novelty is the use of a new inference rule, gazing, which enables the system to determine which of a possibly large number of definitions and lemmas to use at any point in the proof. This decision is made on the basis of multiple abstractions of the current conjecture and of the database of definitions and lemmas. We have used gazer to prove theorems from naïve set theory, and a detailed comparison of the success of the gazing inference rule in cutting down the search for proofs of these theorems is presented in [BP89b].

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Ble83]
    W.W. Bledsoe. The Ut interactive prover. Memo ATP-17B, Mathematics Department, University of Texas, April 1983.Google Scholar
  2. [BM79]
    R.S. Boyer and J S. Moore. A Computational Logic. ACM Monograph Series. Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. [BP89a]
    D. Barker-Plummer. The gazer theorem prover: Description and users guide. Technical Report CS-1989-15, Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27706, USA, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [BP89b]
    D. Barker-Plummer. Gazing: An approach to the problem of definition expansion. Technical Report CS-1989-13, Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, 27706, USA, 1989. To Appear in the Journal of Automated Reasoning.Google Scholar
  5. [Bro78]
    F.M. Brown. Towards the automation of set theory and its logic. Artificial Intelligence, 10:281–316, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. [BT75]
    W.W. Bledsoe and M. Tyson. The Ut interactive prover. Memo ATP-17, Mathematics Department, University of Texas, May 1975.Google Scholar
  7. [Bun83]
    A. Bundy. Finding a common currency — a new proof plan. Internal Note 159, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh., January 1983.Google Scholar
  8. [Gen69]
    G. Gentzen. Untersuchen über das logische schliessen [investigations into logical deduction]. In M.E. Szabo, editor, The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, chapter 3, pages 68–131. North-Holland, 1969. First appeared in 1935 as an article in Mathemaiische Zeitschrift 39. This work was accepted as Gentzen's Inaugural Dissertation at the University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
  9. [Plu88]
    D. Plummer. Gazing: A Technique for Controlling the Use of Rewrite Rules. PhD thesis, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, May 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [Sac74]
    E.D. Sacerdoti. Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces. Artificial Intelligence, 5:115–135, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. [Wos87]
    L. Wos. The problem of definition expansion and contraction. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 3(4), December 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Barker-Plummer
    • 1
  • Alex Rothenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science ProgramSwarthmore CollegeSwarthmore

Personalised recommendations