Rationis Defensor pp 255-274 | Cite as

# Best-Path Theorem Proving: Compiling Derivations

## Abstract

When computers answer our questions in mathematics and logic they need also to be able to supply justification and explanatory insight. Typical theorem provers do not do this. The paper focuses on tableau theorem provers for First Order Predicate Calculus. The paper introduces a general construction and a technique for converting the tableau data structures of these to human friendly linear proofs using any familiar rule set and ‘laws of thought’. The construction uses a type of tableau in which only leaf nodes are extended. To produce insightful proofs, improvements need to be made to the intermediate output. Dependency analysis and refinement, ie compilation of proofs, can produce benefits. To go further, the paper makes other suggestions including a perhaps surprising one: the notion of best proof or insightful proof is an empirical matter. All possible theorems, or all possible proofs, distribute evenly, in some sense or other, among the possible uses of inference steps. However, with the proofs of interest to humans this uniformity of distribution does not hold. Humans favor certain inferences over others, which are structurally very similar. The author’s research has taken many sample questions and proofs from logic texts, scholastic tests, and similar sources, and analyzed the best proofs for them (‘best’ here usually meaning shortest). This empirical research gives rise to some suggestions on heuristic. The general point is: humans are attuned to certain forms inference, empirical research can tell us what those are, and that empirical research can educate as to how tableau theorem provers, and their symbiotic linear counterparts, should run. In sum, tableau theorem provers, coupled with transformations to linear proofs and empirically sourced heuristic, can provide transparent and accessible theorem proving.

## Keywords

Leaf Node Theorem Prover Natural Deduction Standard Tableau Skolem Function## References

- Bergmann, M., J. Moor, and J. Nelson. 1998.
*The logic book*, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar - Beth, E.W. 1969. Semantic entailment and formal derivability. In
*The philosophy of mathematics*, ed. J. Hintikka, 9–41. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Black, P.E. 2005.
*British Museum technique*. Dictionary of algorithms and data structures. Retrieved July 2009, from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/sqg/dads/HTML/britishMuseum.html. - Copeland, B.J., and D.R. Murdoch. 1991. The Arthur Prior memorial conference: Christchurch 1989.
*The Journal of Symbolic Logic*56(1): 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - D’Agostino, M., et al. (eds.). 1999.
*Handbook of tableau methods*. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Fitting, M. 1996.
*First-order logic and automated theorem proving*, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Fitting, M. 1998. Introduction. In
*Handbook of tableau methods*, ed. M. D’Agostino et al. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Frické, M. 1989a.
*Derivation planner*. Dunedin: Unisoft.Google Scholar - Frické, M. 1989b.
*Deriver plus*. Ventura: Kinko’s Academic Courseware Exchange.Google Scholar - Gallier, J.H. 1986.
*Logic for computer science: Foundations of automatic theorem proving*. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar - Gentzen, G. 1935. Investigations into logical deduction. In
*The collected papers of Gerhard Gentzen*, ed. M.E. Szabo. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar - Hähnle, R. 2001. Tableaux and related methods. In
*Handbook of automated reasoning*, ed. J.A. Robinson and A. Voronkov. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Howson, C. 1997.
*Logic with trees: An introduction to symbolic logic*. London: Routledge.Google Scholar - Jeffrey, R.C. 1967.
*Formal logic: Its scope and limits*. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar - Letz, R. 1999. First-order tableau methods. In
*Handbook of tableau methods*, ed. M. D’Agostino et al. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar - Lindstrom, P. 1969. On extensions of elementary logic.
*Theoria*35: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Manzano, M. 1996.
*Extensions of first-order logic*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar - Mill, J.S. 1869. II. Of the liberty of thought and discussion. In
*On liberty*, ed. J.S. Mill. London: Longman, Roberts & Green.Google Scholar - Quine, W.V. 1970.
*Philosophy of logic*, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar - Robinson, J.A., and A. Voronkov (eds.). 2001.
*Handbook of automated reasoning*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar - Sieg, W., and J. Byrnes. 1998. Normal natural deduction proofs (in classical logic).
*Studia Logica*60: 67–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Smullyan, R. 1968.
*First order logic*. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Wolfram, S. 2002.
*A new kind of science*. Champaign: Wolfram Media, Inc.Google Scholar - Zalta, E.N. 2009. Achieving Leibniz’s goal of a computational metaphysics.
*The 2009 North American Conference on Computing and Philosophy*. Bloomington.Google Scholar - Zalta, E.N., B. Fitelson, and P. Oppenheimer. 2011.
*Computational metaphysics*. Retrieved 18 November 2011, from http://mally.stanford.edu/cm/.