Automated Theorem Proving in First-Order Logic Modulo: On the Difference between Type Theory and Set Theory

2000 ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilles Dowek
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Automated Theorem Proving ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
The Difference

Resolution in type theory

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 414-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter B. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Axiomatic Set Theory ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

In [8] J. A. Robinson introduced a complete refutation procedure called resolution for first order predicate calculus. Resolution is based on ideas in Herbrand's Theorem, and provides a very convenient framework in which to search for a proof of a wff believed to be a theorem. Moreover, it has proved possible to formulate many refinements of resolution which are still complete but are more efficient, at least in many contexts. However, when efficiency is a prime consideration, the restriction to first order logic is unfortunate, since many statements of mathematics (and other disciplines) can be expressed more simply and naturally in higher order logic than in first order logic. Also, the fact that in higher order logic (as in many-sorted first order logic) there is an explicit syntactic distinction between expressions which denote different types of intuitive objects is of great value where matching is involved, since one is automatically prevented from trying to make certain inappropriate matches. (One may contrast this with the situation in which mathematical statements are expressed in the symbolism of axiomatic set theory.).

scholarly journals Different Proofs are Good Proofs

10.29007/kwk9 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoff Sutcliffe ◽  
Cynthia Chang ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Deborah McGuinness ◽  
Paulo Pinheiro da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Automated Theorem Proving ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Problem Library

In order to compare the quality of proofs, it is necessary to measure artifacts of the proofs, and evaluate the measurements to determine differences between the proofs. This paper discounts the approach of ranking measurements of proof artifacts, and takes the position that different proofs are good proofs. The position is based on proofs in the TSTP solution library, which are generated by Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) systems applied to first-order logic problems in the TPTP problem library.

scholarly journals Subformula Linking for Intuitionistic Logic with Application to Type Theory

2021 ◽  
pp. 200-216
Author(s):  
Kaustuv Chaudhuri
Keyword(s):  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Intuitionistic Logic ◽  
Type Theory ◽  
Linear Logic ◽  
Interactive Theorem Proving ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Direct Manipulation ◽  
First Order

AbstractSubformula linking is an interactive theorem proving technique that was initially proposed for (classical) linear logic. It is based on truth and context preserving rewrites of a conjecture that are triggered by a user indicating links between subformulas, which can be done by direct manipulation, without the need of tactics or proof languages. The system guarantees that a true conjecture can always be rewritten to a known, usually trivial, theorem. In this work, we extend subformula linking to intuitionistic first-order logic with simply typed lambda-terms as the term language of this logic. We then use a well known embedding of intuitionistic type theory into this logic to demonstrate one way to extend linking to type theory.

Proof Procedures for Logic Programming

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald W. Loveland ◽  
Gopalan Nadathur
Keyword(s):  
Logic Programming ◽  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Automated Theorem Proving ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Proof Procedure ◽  
Sld Resolution ◽  
Work Done ◽  
Resolution Proof

A proof procedure is an algorithm (technically, a semi-decision procedure) which identifies a formula as valid (or unsatisfiable) when appropriate, and may not terminate when the formula is invalid (satisfiable). Since a proof procedure concerns a logic the procedure takes a special form, superimposing a search strategy on an inference calculus. We will consider a certain collection of proof procedures in the light of an inference calculus format that abstracts the concept of logic programming. This formulation allows us to look beyond SLD-resolution, the proof procedure that underlies Prolog, to generalizations and extensions that retain an essence of logic programming structure. The inference structure used in the formulation of the logic programming concept and first realization, Prolog, evolved from the work done in the subdiscipline called automated theorem proving. While many proof procedures have been developed within this subdiscipline, some of which appear in Volume 1 of this handbook, we will present a narrow selection, namely the proof procedures which are clearly ancestors of the first proof procedure associated with logic programming, SLD-resolution. Extensive treatment of proof procedures for automated theorem proving appear in Bibel [Bibel, 1982], Chang and Lee [Chang and Lee, 1973] and Loveland [Loveland, 1978]. Although the consideration of proof procedures for automated theorem proving began about 1958 we begin our overview with the introduction of the resolution proof procedure by Robinson in 1965. We then review the linear resolution procedures, model elimination and SL-resolution procedures. Our exclusion of other proof procedures from consideration here is due to our focus, not because other procedures are less important historically or for general use within automated or semi-automated theorem process. After a review of the general resolution proof procedure, we consider the linear refinement for resolution and then further restrict the procedure format to linear input resolution. Here we are no longer capable of treating full first-order logic, but have forced ourselves to address a smaller domain, in essence the renameable Horn clause formulas. By leaving the resolution format, indeed leaving traditional formula representation, we see there exists a linear input procedure for all of first-order logic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document