Analyzing Rule Sets for the Calculation of Banking Fees by a Theorem Prover with Constraints

Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS, volume 10)


We show that theorem proving, logic programming and constraint solving can be combined in a straightforward manner. This is shown not only by setting up a theoretical framework, but also by a real world application: the calculation of banking fees. We tackle the problem of deciding whether such a rule set is total and deterministic. Although these questions are undecidable in general, the restricted form of the investigated rule sets makes them decidable and even tractable in practise. Experiences with our system implemented in Prolog as well as some questions one may have with the application are discussed. The success of this application is due to the combination of constraint logic programming and first-order theorem proving, based on the model elimination calculus which is in the focus of the German research program on deduction. Each approach alone is not powerful enough to find the solution in reasonable time. The procedure proposed here can easily be generalized to analyzing arbitrary rule sets.


Logic Program Logic Programming Theorem Prove Decision Table Finite Domain 
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. Baumgartner, P. and U. Furbach: 1994, PROTEIN: A PROver with a Theory Extension INterface’. In: A. Bundy (ed.): Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Nancy, pp. 769–773, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner, P., U. Furbach, and F Stolzenburg: 1997, Computing answers with model elimination’. Artificial Intelligence 90 (1–2), 135–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, P. and E Stolzenburg: 1995, Constraint Model Elimination and a PTTP-Implementation’. In: P. Baumgartner, R. Hähnle, and J. Posegga (eds.):Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. pp. 201–216, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bibel, W.: 1982, Automated Theorem Proving. Braunschweig, Wiesbaden: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  5. Bürckert, H.-J.: 1991, A Resolution Principle for a Logic with Restricted Quantifiers, LNAI 568. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Colomb, R. M. and C. Y. C. Chung: 1995, Strategies for Building Propositional Expert Systems’. Journal of Intelligent Systems 10, 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahn, B. I., J. Gehne, T. Honigmann, L. Walther, and A. Wolf: 1995, Integrating Logical Functions with ILF’. Humbold-Universität, Berlin. Manual.Google Scholar
  8. ECRC: 1995, ECLiPSe 3. 5: User Manual — Extensions User Manual’. ECRC GmbH, München. Two volumes.Google Scholar
  9. Freuder, E. C.: 1982, A Sufficient Condition for Backtrack-Free Search’. Journal of the ACM 29 (1), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoover, D. N. and Z. Chen: 1995, Tablewise, a Decision Table Tool’. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Computer Assurance. Washington, pp.97–108, IEEE.Google Scholar
  11. Jaffar, J. and M. J. Maher: 1994, Constraint Logic Programming: a Survey’. Journal of Logic Programming 19/20 503–581.Google Scholar
  12. Lloyd, J. W: 1987, Foundations of Logic Programming. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Loveland, D. W: 1968, ‘Mechanical Theorem Proving by Model Elimination’. Journal of the ACM 15(2).Google Scholar
  14. Maher, M. J.: 1993, ‘A Logic Programming View of CLP’. In: D. S. Warren (ed.): Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming. Budapest, pp. 737–753, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London.Google Scholar
  15. Rich, C. and R. C. Waters (eds.): 1986, Artificial Intelligence and Software Engineering. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. Schmid, K.-M.: 1990, ‘Eindeutigkeit und Vollständigkeit zweistelliger Relationen — Entscheidungsverfahren für eingeschränkte Fälle’. Diplomarbeit, Universität Kaiserslautern. Supervised by Hans-Jürgen Ohlbach.Google Scholar
  17. Stickel, M. E.: 1985, ‘Automated Deduction by Theory Resolution’. Journal of Automated Reasoning 1(3), 333–355.Google Scholar
  18. Stickel, M. E.: 1988, ‘A Prolog Technology Theorem Prover: Implementation by an Extended Prolog Compiler’. Journal of Automated Reasoning 4 353–380.Google Scholar
  19. Stolzenburg, E: 1998, Disjunctive Logic Programming with Constraints and its Applications, Koblenzer Schriften zur Informatik. Koblenz: Fölbach. Dissertation.Google Scholar
  20. Stolzenburg, F and B. Thomas: 1996, ‘Analysing Rule Sets for the Calculation of Banking Fees by a Theorem Prover with Constraints’. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Practical Application of Constraint Technology. London, pp. 269–282, Practical Application Company.Google Scholar
  21. van Hentenryck, P.: 1989, Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations