Combining Finite Model Generation with Theorem Proving

Problems And Prospects
Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS, volume 3)


This paper is about automatic searching for proofs, automatic searching for models and the potentially fruitful ways in which these traditionally separate aspects of reasoning may be made to interact. It takes its starting point in research reported in 1993 (Slaney, SCOTT: A Semantically Guided Theorem Prover, Proc. 13th IJCAI) on a system which combines a high performance first order theorem prover with a program generating small models of first order theories. The main theorem is an incompleteness result for a certain range of problems to which this combined system has been successfully applied. While the result may not be unexpected, the proof is worth examining and it is important to reflect on its relationship to the research program in combining methods.


Theorem Prove Automate Reasoning Proof Strategy Automate Deduction Proof Search 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. P. Graf, Substitution tree indexing, Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. R. Hasegawa, M. Koshimura & H. Fujita, MGTP: A Parallel Theorem Prover Based on Lazy Model Generation, Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction (1992), 776–780.Google Scholar
  3. J.A. Kaiman, Condensed detachment as a rule of inference, Studia Logica 42 (1983), 443–451.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. W. McCune, OTTER 2.0 Users Guide, Argonne National Laboratory, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. W. McCune & L. Wos, Experiments in automated deduction with condensed detachment, Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction (1992), 209–223.Google Scholar
  6. R.K. Meyer & M.W. Bunder, Condensed detachment and combinators, Technical report TR-ARP-8/88, Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. R.K. Meyer, M.W. Bunder & L. Powers, Implementing the fool’s model of combinatory logic, Journal of Automated Reasoning 7 (1991).Google Scholar
  8. J. Schumann, SiCoTHEO: Simple Competitive parallel Theorem Provers based on SETHE0, Typescript, Institut für Informatik, Technische Universität München, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. J.R. Slagle, Automatic theorem proving with renamable and semantic resolution, Journal of the ACM 14 (1967), 687–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Slaney, SCOTT: A model-guided theorem prover, Proceedings of 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1993), 109–114.Google Scholar
  11. J. Slaney, FINDER: Finite Domain Enumerator (system description), Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction (1994), 764–768.Google Scholar
  12. J. Slaney, E. Lusk & W. McCune, SCOTT:Semantically Constrained OTTER (system description)Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction (1994), 764–768.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Automated Reasoning ProjectThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations