Advertisement

Completeness for linear regular negation normal form inference systems

  • Reiner Hähnle
  • Neil V. Murray
  • Erik Rosenthal
Communications Session 7B Logic for AI
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1325)

Abstract

Completeness proofs that generalize the Anderson- Bledsoe excess literal argument are developed for calculi other than resolution. A simple proof of the completeness of regular, connected tableaux for formulas in conjunctive normal form (CNF) is presented. These techniques also provide completeness results for some inference mechanisms that do not rely on clause form. In particular, the completeness of regular, connected tableaux for formulas in negation normal form (NNF), and the completeness of NC-resolution under a linear restriction, are established.

Keywords

Logic for Artificial Intelligence completeness tableau method resolution non-clausal inference negation normal form 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, R., and Bledsoe, W., A linear format for resolution with merging and a new technique for establishing completeness, J. ACM 17(3) (1970), 525–534.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baumgartner, P. and Furbach, U. Model elimination without contrapositives. Proc. 12th Conference on Automated Deduction CADE, Nancy/France. In Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, (Bundy, Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Vol. 814, 87–101.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bibel, W., On matrices with connections, J. ACM 28 (1981), 633–645.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, M. and Putnam, H. A computing procedure for quantification theory. J.ACM 7, 1960, 201–215.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hähnle, R., Murray, N.V. and Rosenthal, E. On proving completeness. Tech. Rep. TR 96-6, Dept. of Comp. Sci., SUNY Albany, NY, December, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kowalski, R. and Kuehner D., Linear Resolution with Selection Function. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3), (1971), 227–260.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Letz, R., First-order calculi and proof procedures for automated deduction, Ph.D. dissertation, TU Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loveland, D.W., Automated Theorem Proving. A Logical Basis, North-Holland, New York (1978).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murray, N.V., and Rosenthal, E., Inference with path resolution and semantic graphs. J. ACM 34,2 (1987), 225–254.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murray, N.V., and Rosenthal, E. Dissolution: Making paths vanish. J.ACM 40,3 (July 1993), 504–535.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oppacher, F. and Suen, E. HARP: A tableau-based theorem prover, Journal of Automated Reasoning 4 (1988), 69–100.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramesh, A. and Murray, N.V. An application of non-clausal deduction in diagnosis. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Monterrey, Mexico, October 17–20, 1995, 378–385.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reiter, R., A theory of diagnosis from first principles. A.I. Journal, 32 (1987), 57–95.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smullyan, R.M., First-Order Logic (2nd Edition), Dover Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallace, K. and Wrightson, G. Regressive merging in model elimination tableau-based theorem provers, Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logics, (Special Issue: Selected Papers from Tableaux'94), 3 (Oct. 1995), 921–938.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reiner Hähnle
    • 1
  • Neil V. Murray
    • 2
  • Erik Rosenthal
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceState University of New YorkAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUniversity of New HavenWest Haven

Personalised recommendations