Model elimination without contrapositives and its application to PTTP

1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Baumgartner ◽  
Ulrich Furbach
Keyword(s):  
Model Elimination

Mechanical Theorem-Proving by Model Elimination

1968 ◽  
pp. 117-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. W. Loveland
Keyword(s):  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Model Elimination ◽  
Mechanical Theorem Proving ◽  
Mechanical Theorem

A sequent-style model elimination strategy and a positive refinement

1990 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
DavidA. Plaisted
Keyword(s):  
Model Elimination

System description: Cooperation in model elimination: CPTHEO

1998 ◽  
pp. 42-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Fuchs ◽  
Andreas Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Model Elimination ◽  
System Description

Model-free model elimination: A new step in the model-free dynamic analysis of NMR relaxation data

2006 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J. d’Auvergne ◽  
Paul R. Gooley
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Analysis ◽  
Nmr Relaxation ◽  
Model Elimination ◽  
Relaxation Data ◽  
Model Free ◽  
Free Model ◽  
Free Dynamic

An Implementation of the Model Elimination Proof Procedure

1974 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Fleisig ◽  
D. Loveland ◽  
A. K. Smiley ◽  
D. L. Yarmush
Keyword(s):  
Model Elimination ◽  
Proof Procedure

scholarly journals Cooperation between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Theorem Provers

1999 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 169-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Fuchs ◽  
M. Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
Goal Orientation ◽  
Theorem Proving ◽  
Search Space ◽  
High Potential ◽  
Model Elimination ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Redundancy Control ◽  
Problem Library

Top-down and bottom-up theorem proving approaches each have specific advantages and disadvantages. Bottom-up provers profit from strong redundancy control but suffer from the lack of goal-orientation, whereas top-down provers are goal-oriented but often have weak calculi when their proof lengths are considered. In order to integrate both approaches, we try to achieve cooperation between a top-down and a bottom-up prover in two different ways: The first technique aims at supporting a bottom-up with a top-down prover. A top-down prover generates subgoal clauses, they are then processed by a bottom-up prover. The second technique deals with the use of bottom-up generated lemmas in a top-down prover. We apply our concept to the areas of model elimination and superposition. We discuss the ability of our techniques to shorten proofs as well as to reorder the search space in an appropriate manner. Furthermore, in order to identify subgoal clauses and lemmas which are actually relevant for the proof task, we develop methods for a relevancy-based filtering. Experiments with the provers SETHEO and SPASS performed in the problem library TPTP reveal the high potential of our cooperation approaches.

In situ SERS monitored photoactive yellow protein (PYP) chromophore model elimination, nano-catalyzed phenyl redox and I2 addition reactions

RSC Advances ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (112) ◽  
pp. 111144-111147
Author(s):  
Wei Li ◽  
Wenlei Chu ◽  
Wen Jin ◽  
Xijiang Han ◽  
Yufei Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Double Bond ◽  
Photoactive Yellow Protein ◽  
Addition Reactions ◽  
Amino Group ◽  
Model Elimination ◽  
Redox Cycle ◽  
Au Nps

PhS nitration products absorbed on Ag/Au NPs underwent nitro- and amino-group redox cycle reactions monitored using SERS spectra. I2 addition to the CC double bond was also confirmed with SERS.

3. Tableau Model Elimination

1998 ◽  
pp. 49-63
Author(s):  
Peter Baumgartner
Keyword(s):  
Model Elimination
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document