On the value of antiprenexing

  • Uwe Egly
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 822)


In this paper, we examine the effect of antiprenexing on the proof length if resolution deduction concepts are applied. Roughly speaking, our version of antiprenexing moves ∀-quantifiers downward in the formula tree whereas ∃-quantifiers are moved upward. We show that two different Skolemization techniques result in two clause sets with rather different resolution refutations. The lower bounds on the length of both refutations differ exponentially. Furthermore, we demonstrate that both techniques can be improved if antiprenexing is applied before Skolemization. Finally, we examine the influence of antiprenexing if extended resolution deduction concepts are used.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. B. Andrews. Theorem Proving via General Matings. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 28, No.2:193–214, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Baaz and A. Leitsch. Complexity of Resolution Proofs and Function Introduc-tion. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 57:181–215, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Baaz and A. Leitsch. On Skolemization and Proof Complexity. Fundamenta Informaticae, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Bibel. An Approach to a Systematic Theorem Proving Procedure in First-Order Logic. Computing, 12:43–55, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Bibel. Automated Theorem Proving. Vieweg, Braunschweig, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Eder. Relative Complexities of First Order Calculi. Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U. Egly. Shortening Proofs by Quantifier Introduction. In A. Voronkov, editor, Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning, pages 148–159. Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U. Egly. On Different Concepts of Function Introduction. In G. Gottlob, A. Leitsch, and D. Mundici, editors, Proceedings of the Kurt Gödel Colloquium, pages 172–183. Springer Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Egly. Function Introduction and the Complexity of Proofs. PhD thesis, TH Darmstadt, Alexanderstr. 10, D-64283 Darmstadt, 1994. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Hähnle and P. H. Schmitt. The Liberalized δ-Rule in Free Variable Semantic Tableaux. Journal of Automated Reasoning. To appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. R. Lewis. Renaming a Set of Clauses as a Horn Set. Journal of the ACM, 25(1):134–135, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. W. Loveland. Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, volume 6 of Fun-damental Studies in Computer Science. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. A. Plaisted and S. Greenbaum. A Structure-Preserving Clause Form Transla-tion. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 2:293–304, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Statman. Lower Bounds on Herbrand's Theorem. In Proc. AMS 75, pages 104–107, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uwe Egly
    • 1
  1. 1.TH DarmstadtDarmstadt

Personalised recommendations