SPIKE: A system for sufficient completeness and parameterized inductive proofs

  • Adel Bouhoula
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 814)


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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [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
  2. [BKR92a]
    A. Bouhoula, E. Kounalis and M. Rusinowitch. Automated mathematical induction. Technical Report 1636, INRIA, 1992. Submitted.Google Scholar
  3. [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
  4. [Bou93]
    A. Bouhoula. Parameterized Specifications: Sufficient Completeness and Implicit Induction. Technical Report 2129, INRIA, 1993. Submitted.Google Scholar
  5. [Bou94]
    A. Bouhoula. Preuves Automatiques par Récurrence dans les Théories Conditionnelles. PhD thesis, Thèse de l'université de Nancy I, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [BM79]
    R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. [KR90]
    E. Kounalis and M. Rusinowitch. Mechanizing inductive reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference, Boston, pages 240–245. July 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [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
  9. [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
  10. [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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adel Bouhoula
    • 1
  1. 1.CRIN & INRIA-LorraineVandoeuvre-lès-NancyFrance

Personalised recommendations