Advertisement

Computing induction axioms

  • Christoph Walther
Session 13: Non-Resolution Theorem Proving II
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 624)

Abstract

The computation of induction axioms in the explicit induction paradigm is investigated. A simple notion with a well-defined semantics, called a relation description, is proposed as the elementary building block for automated reasoning on induction axioms. It is demonstrated how relation descriptions can be created, manipulated and compared by machine so that useful and strong induction axioms can be derived from them. For each of these operations the semantics of their effects and a precise semantical justification for their application is given. It is shown how the proposed framework can be used to describe the methods implemented in Boyer and Moore's NQTHM system in an abstract setting with a well-defined semantics. NQTHM's merging and subsumption heuristics for combining and comparing induction schemas arc analysed as an example, how a rigorous formal approach may uncover implicit assumptions and hidden flaws. A containment test then is proposed as a powerful, non-heuristic, and completeness preserving operation to select among competing induction schemas. The motivation for this test evolves straightforwardly in the given-framework by recognizing the semantics of the intended effect

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aubin, R. Mechanizing Structural Induction. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Aubin, R. Mechanizing Structural Induction. Theoretical Computer Science, vol 9, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Biundo, S., Hummel, B., Hutter, D. and Walther, C. The Karlsruhe Induction Theorem Proving System. Proc. 8th CADE, Lecture Notes Comp. Sc., vol. 230, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, R.S. and J S. Moore Proving Theorems about LISP functions. J.ACM 22, 1975.Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, R.S. and J S. Moore A Computational Logic. Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, R.S. and J S. Moore A Computational Logic Handbook. Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. Bundy, A., et. al. A Rational Reconstruction and Extension of Recursion Analysis. Proc. Intern. Joint. Conf. on Artif. Intelligence., Detroit, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. Burstall, RM. Proving Properties of Programs by Structural Induction. Comput. J. 12(1), 1969.Google Scholar
  9. Kapur, D. and Musser, D.R. Proof by Consistency. Artificial. Intelligence, vol 31, no 2, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. Protzen, M. Disproving Conjectures. Proc. 11 th CADE, Saratoga Springs, 1992Google Scholar
  11. Reddy, U. S. Term Rewriting Induction. Proc. l0th CADE, Kaiserslautern, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. Stevens, A. An improved method for the mechanization of inductive proof. Ph.D Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. Walther, C. Argument-Bounded Algorithms as a Basis for Automated Termination Proofs. Proceedings 9th CADE, Lecture Notes Comp. Sc, vol. 310, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. Walther, C. Computing Induction Axioms — Methods and Formal Bases. Research Memo, Fachbereich Informatik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, 1991a.Google Scholar
  15. Walther, C. Combining Induction Axioms by Machine. Research Memo, Fachbereich Informatik, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, 1991b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachbereich InformatikTechnische Hochschule DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations