Tableau-based theorem proving and synthesis of λ-terms in the intuitionistic logic
Because of its constructive aspect, the intuitionistic logic plays an important role in the context of the programming paradigm ”programming by proving”. Programs are expressed by λ-terms which can be seen as compact representations of natural deduction proofs. We are presenting a tableau calculus for the first-order intuitionistic logic which allows to synthesize λ-terms. The calculus is obtained from the tableau calculus for the classical logic by extending its rules by λ-terms. In each rule application and closing of tableau branches, λ-terms are synthesized by unification. Particularly, a new λ-term construct (implicit case analysis) is introduced for the the disjunction rules.
In contrary to existing approachs based on the natural deduction calculus, our calculus is very appropriate for automatic reasoning. We implemented the calculus in Prolog. A strategy which is similar to model elimination has been built in. Several formulas (including program synthesis problems) have been proven automatically.
Key wordsIntuitionistic Logic Automatic Theorem Proving Program Synthesis Typed λ-Calculus
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [And80]Andrews, P. B., Transforming Matings into Natural Deduction Proofs, 5. CADE, LNCS 87, 1980.Google Scholar
- [Bit91]Bittel, O., Ein tableaubasierter Theorembeweiser für die intuitionistische Logik, Ph.D. thesis, GMD-Report 198, Oldenbourg-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
- [BSH90]Bundy, A., Smaill, A. Hesketh, J., Turning Eureka Steps into Calculations in Automatic Programm Syntesis, in Proceedings of the First Workshop on Logical Frameworks, Antibes, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Con86]Constable, R. L. et al., Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System, Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
- [Coq90]Coquand, T., On the Analogy Between Propositions and Types, in Logical Foundations of Functional Programming, G. Huet (ed.), Addison-Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Fit83]Fitting, M., Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics, Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
- [Fit90]Fitting, M., First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving, Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
- [Gir89]Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y., Taylor, P., Proofs and Types, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 7, 1989.Google Scholar
- [How80]Howard, W. A., The Formulae as Types Notion of Construction, in H. B. Curry — essays on Combinatory Logic, λ-calculus and Formalism, Seldin/Hindley (Eds.), 579–606, Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
- [Lin89]Lingenfelder, C., Structuring Computer Generated Proofs, IJCAI, 1989.Google Scholar
- [Mar82]Martin-Löf, P., Constructive Mathematics and Computer Programming, in I. J. Cohen, J. Los, H. Pfeiffer and K. D. Podewski (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and Phylosophy of Science VI, 153–179, North-Holland, 1982.Google Scholar
- [Mil84]Miller, D. A., Expansion Tree Proofs and their Conversion to Natural Deduction Proofs, 7. CADE, LNCS 170, 1984Google Scholar
- [Ohl88]Ohlbach, H. J., A Resolution Calculus for Modal Logics, 9. CADE, LNCS 310, 1988.Google Scholar
- [Pra65]Prawitz, D., Natural Deduction, Almquist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1965.Google Scholar
- [Sch85]Schönfeld, W., Prolog Extensions Based on Tableau Calculus, IJCAI, 1985.Google Scholar
- [Wal88]Wallen, L. A., Matrix Proof Methods for Modal Logics, IJCAI, 1988.Google Scholar