Termination of theorem proving by reuse

  • Thomas Kolbe
  • Christoph Walther
Session 2A
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1104)


We investigate the improvement of theorem provers by reusing previously computed proofs. We formulate our method for reusing proofs as an instance of the problem reduction paradigm and then develop a termination requirement for our reuse procedure. We prove the soundness of our proposal and show that reusability of proofs is not spoiled by the termination requirement imposed on the reuse procedure. We also give evidence for the general usefulness of our termination requirement for lemma speculation in induction theorem proving.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Bouhoula, E. Kounalis, and M. Rusinowitch. Spike: An Automatic Theorem Prover. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR-92), St. Petersburg, Russia. Springer, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. S. Boyer and J. S. Moore. A Computational Logic. ACM Monograph Series. Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Brauburger. Plagiator — Design and Implementation of a Learning Theorem Prover. Diploma Thesis, TH Darmstadt, 1994. (in German).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Dershowitz. Termination of Rewriting. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 3(1,2):69–115, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Dershowitz and J.-P. Jouannaud. Rewrite Systems, volume B of the Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science: Formal Models and Semantics, chapter 6, pages 243–320. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1990. Jan van Leeuwen (Ed.).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Dershowitz and Z. Manna. Proving Termination with Multiset Orderings. Communications of the ACM, 22(8):465–476, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Ellman. Explanation-Based Learning: A Survey of Programs and Perspectives. ACM Computing Surveys, 21(2):163–221, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Giunchiglia and T. Walsh. A Theory of Abstraction. Artificial Intelligence, 57:323–389, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. P. Hall. Computational Approaches to Analogical Reasoning: A Comparative Analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 39:39–120, 1989.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Ireland and A. Bundy. Productive Use of Failure in Inductive Proof. Special Issue of the Journal of Automated Reasoning on Automation of Proofs by Mathematical Induction, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Kapur and H. Zhang. RRL: A Rewrite Rule Laborarory. In E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-88), Argonne, pages 768–769. Springer LNCS 310, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Kolbe and C. Walther. Reusing Proofs. In A. Cohn, editor, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-94), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pages 80–84. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Kolbe and C. Walther. Patching Proofs for Reuse. In N. Lavrac and S. Wrobel, editors, Proceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML-95), Heraklion, Greece, pages 303–306. Springer LNAI 912, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Kolbe and C. Walther. Patching Proofs for Reuse. Technical Report IBN 95/27, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Kolbe and C. Walther. Proof Management and Retrieval. In Proceedings of the IJCAI'95 Workshop on Formal Approaches to the Reuse of Plans, Proofs, and Programs, pages 16–20, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Kolbe and C. Walther. Second-Order Matching modulo Evaluation — A Technique for Reusing Proofs. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, Canada, pages 190–195, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Kolbe and C. Walther. On the Benefits of Reusing Past Problem Solutions. Technical Report IBN 96/35, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. J. Nilsson. Problem Solving Methods in Artificial Intelligence. McGraw Hill, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Walther. Mathematical Induction. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 2, pages 127–227. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Kolbe
    • 1
  • Christoph Walther
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich InformatikTechnische Hochschule DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations