Instantiation of existentially quantified variables in inductive specification proofs

  • Brigitte Pientka
  • Christoph Kreitz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1476)


We present an automatic approach for instantiating existentially quantified variables in inductive specifications proofs. Our approach uses first-order meta-variables in place of existentially quantified variables and combines logical proof search with rippling techniques. We avoid the non-termination problems which usually occur in the presence of existentially quantified variables. Moreover, we are able to synthesize conditional substitutions for the meta-variables. We illustrate our approach by discussing the specification of the integer square root.


Induction Hypothesis Sequent Calculus Induction Scheme Existential Quantifier Proof Procedure 
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. 1.
    A. Armando, A. Smaill, and I. Green. Automatic synthesis of recursive programs: The proof-planning paradigm. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Automated Software Engineering Conference, p 2–9. IEEE Computer Society, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Basin and T. Walsh. A calculus for and termination of rippling. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 16(2): 147–180, 1996.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. L. Bates and R. L. Constable. Proofs as programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 7(1):113–136, January 1985.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. Bibel, D. Korn, C. Kreitz, F. Kurucz et al., A multi-level approach to program synthesis. In Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation,Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Biundo. Automated synthesis of recursive algorithms as a theorem proving tool. In Proceedings of the 8th ECAI, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Bundy, A. Stevens, F. van Harmelen et al., Rippling: A heuristic for guiding inductive proofs. Artificial Intelligence, 62(2): 185–253, August 1993.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, A. Smaill et al., Extensions to the rippling-out tactic for guiding inductive proofs. In Proceedings of the 10th International CADE, p 132–146. LNAI, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. L. Constable, S. F. Allen, H. M. Bromley, and et al. Implementing Meta-Mathematics with the NuPRLProof Development System. Prentice-Hall, 1086.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jane T. Hesketh. Using Middle-Out Reasoning to Guide Inductive Theorem Proving. PhD thesis, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. Kraan, D. Basin, and A. Bundy. Logic program synthesis via proof planning. In Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation, p 1–14. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferenc Kurucz. Realisierung verschiedender Induktionsstrategien basierend auf dem Rippling-Kalkül. Master’s thesis, Technical University Darmstadt, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Per Martin-Löf. Constructive mathematics and computer programming. In 6-th International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 1979, p 153–175. North-Holland, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Nordström, K. Petersson, and J. M. Smith. Programming in Martin-Löfs Type Theory. An introduction. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Otten and C. Kreitz. A Uniform Proof Procedure for Classical and Non-classical Logics. KI-96: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1137, p 307–319. Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Pientka. Automating the instantiation of existentially quantified variables, technical report, Dept. of Computer Science, Cornell University,1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Smaill and I. Green. Automating the synthesis of functional programs. Research paper 777, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Tammet. A resolution theorem prover for intuitionistic logic. In Proceedings of the 13th International CADE, LNAI 1104, p 2–16, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brigitte Pientka
    • 1
  • Christoph Kreitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations