SPIKE: A system for sufficient completeness and parameterized inductive proofs
The system SPIKE is an automated system for theorem proving in theories presented by a set of Horn clauses with equality. SPIKE is written in Caml Light and contains more than 10000 lines of code. It runs on SUN4 workstations under Unix with a graphical user-friendly interface in Xwindow system realized in Tk. It has been designed to provide users with facilities to direct and monitor proofs easily. The main novelty is the use of a new inference rule, which permit us to prove and disprove automatically inductive properties in parameterized conditional specifications [Bou93]. The motivation for this is that theorem proving in parameterized specifications allows for shorter and more structured proofs. Moreover, a generic proof can be given only once and reused for each instantiation of the parameters. Our procedure also extends our previous work [BR93a] to non-free constructors. Based on computer experiments, the method appears to be more practical and efficient than inductive proofs in non-parameterized specifications. We have also implemented a new procedure for testing sufficient completeness for parameterized conditional specifications [Bou93]. Moreover, SPIKE offers facilities to check and complete definitions.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [Bun90]A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, C. Horn and A. Smaill. The Oyster-Clam system. 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction. LNAI No. 44. pages 647–648. 1990.Google Scholar
- [BKR92a]A. Bouhoula, E. Kounalis and M. Rusinowitch. Automated mathematical induction. Technical Report 1636, INRIA, 1992. Submitted.Google Scholar
- [BR93a]A. Bouhoula and M. Rusinowitch. Automatic Case Analysis in Proof by Induction. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, page 88–94. Chambéry France, 1993.Google Scholar
- [Bou93]A. Bouhoula. Parameterized Specifications: Sufficient Completeness and Implicit Induction. Technical Report 2129, INRIA, 1993. Submitted.Google Scholar
- [Bou94]A. Bouhoula. Preuves Automatiques par Récurrence dans les Théories Conditionnelles. PhD thesis, Thèse de l'université de Nancy I, 1994.Google Scholar
- [BM79]R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
- [KR90]E. Kounalis and M. Rusinowitch. Mechanizing inductive reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference, Boston, pages 240–245. July 1990.Google Scholar
- [Mus80]D. R. Musser. On proving inductive properties of abstract data types. In Proceedings 7th ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 154–162. Association for Computing Machinery, 1980.Google Scholar
- [Red90]U. S. Reddy. Term rewriting induction. In M. E. Stickel, editor, Proceedings 10th ICADE, Kaiserslautern (Germany), volume 449 of LNCS, pages 162–177. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
- [ZKK88]H. Zhang, D. Kapur, and M. S. Krishnamoorthy. A mechanizable induction principle for equational specifications. In Proceedings 9th ICADE. Argonne (III., USA), volume 310 of LNCS, pages 162–181. Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar