scholarly journals Embedding of Quantified Higher-Order Nominal Modal Logic into Classical Higher-Order Logic

10.29007/dzc2 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Wisniewski ◽  
Alexander Steen
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Tense Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Automated Theorem Prover ◽  
Nominal Logic ◽  
The Moment

In this paper, we present an embedding of higher-order nominal modal logicinto classical higher-order logic, and study its automation. There exists no automated theorem prover for first-order or higher-order nominal logic at the moment, hence, this is the first automation for this kind of logic.In our work, we focus on nominal tense logic and have successfully proven some first theorems.

scholarly journals Leo-III Version 1.1 (System description)

10.29007/grmx ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Benzmüller ◽  
Alexander Steen ◽  
Max Wisniewski
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
System Description ◽  
Agent Based ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theorem Provers ◽  
Automated Theorem Prover ◽  
Ordering Constraints

Leo-III is an automated theorem prover for (polymorphic) higher-order logic which supports all common TPTP dialects, including THF, TFF and FOF as well as their rank-1 polymorphic derivatives. It is based on a paramodulation calculus with ordering constraints and, in tradition of its predecessor LEO-II, heavily relies on cooperation with external first-order theorem provers.Unlike LEO-II, asynchronous cooperation with typed first-order provers and an agent-based internal cooperation scheme is supported. In this paper, we sketch Leo-III's underlying calculus, survey implementation details and give examples of use.

scholarly journals Making Higher-Order Superposition Work

2021 ◽  
pp. 415-432
Author(s):  
Petar Vukmirović ◽  
Alexander Bentkamp ◽  
Jasmin Blanchette ◽  
Simon Cruanes ◽  
Visa Nummelin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Rules ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
New Challenges

AbstractSuperposition is among the most successful calculi for first-order logic. Its extension to higher-order logic introduces new challenges such as infinitely branching inference rules, new possibilities such as reasoning about formulas, and the need to curb the explosion of specific higher-order rules. We describe techniques that address these issues and extensively evaluate their implementation in the Zipperposition theorem prover. Largely thanks to their use, Zipperposition won the higher-order division of the CASC-J10 competition.

scholarly journals Going Polymorphic - TH1 Reasoning for Leo-III

10.29007/jgkw ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Steen ◽  
Max Wisniewski ◽  
Christoph Benzmüller
Keyword(s):  
Type Systems ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
Proof Assistants ◽  
Interactive Proof ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Provers ◽  
Reasoning System ◽  
Automated Theorem Prover

While interactive proof assistants for higher-order logic (HOL) commonly admit reasoning within rich type systems, current theorem provers for HOL are mainly based on simply typed lambda-calculi and therefore do not allow such flexibility. In this paper, we present modifications to the higher-order automated theorem prover Leo-III for turning it into a reasoning system for rank-1 polymorphic HOL.To that end, a polymorphic version of HOL and a suitable paramodulation-based calculus are sketched. The implementation is evaluated using a set of polymorphic TPTP THF problems.

scholarly journals Theorem Provers For Every Normal Modal Logic

10.29007/jsb9 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Gleißner ◽  
Alexander Steen ◽  
Christoph Benzmüller
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Modal Logics ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
Normal Modal Logic ◽  
Theorem Provers

We present a procedure for algorithmically embedding problems formulated in higher- order modal logic into classical higher-order logic. The procedure was implemented as a stand-alone tool and can be used as a preprocessor for turning TPTP THF-compliant the- orem provers into provers for various modal logics. The choice of the concrete modal logic is thereby specified within the problem as a meta-logical statement. This specification for- mat as well as the underlying semantics parameters are discussed, and the implementation and the operation of the tool are outlined.By combining our tool with one or more THF-compliant theorem provers we accomplish the most widely applicable modal logic theorem prover available to date, i.e. no other available prover covers more variants of propositional and quantified modal logics. Despite this generality, our approach remains competitive, at least for quantified modal logics, as our experiments demonstrate.

scholarly journals Superposition with First-class Booleans and Inprocessing Clausification

2021 ◽  
pp. 378-395
Author(s):  
Visa Nummelin ◽  
Alexander Bentkamp ◽  
Sophie Tourret ◽  
Petar Vukmirović
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Superposition Calculus

AbstractWe present a complete superposition calculus for first-order logic with an interpreted Boolean type. Our motivation is to lay the foundation for refutationally complete calculi in more expressive logics with Booleans, such as higher-order logic, and to make superposition work efficiently on problems that would be obfuscated when using clausification as preprocessing. Working directly on formulas, our calculus avoids the costly axiomatic encoding of the theory of Booleans into first-order logic and offers various ways to interleave clausification with other derivation steps. We evaluate our calculus using the Zipperposition theorem prover, and observe that, with no tuning of parameters, our approach is on a par with the state-of-the-art approach.

scholarly journals CSE_E 1.0: An Integrated Automated Theorem Prover for First-Order Logic

Symmetry ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. 1142
Author(s):  
Feng Cao ◽  
Yang Xu ◽  
Jun Liu ◽  
Shuwei Chen ◽  
Xinran Ning
Keyword(s):  
Order Logic ◽  
Theorem Prover ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
Inference Mechanism ◽  
First Order ◽  
Proof Search ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Heuristic Strategies ◽  
Automated Theorem Prover ◽  
Hard Problems

First-order logic is an important part of mathematical logic, and automated theorem proving is an interdisciplinary field of mathematics and computer science. The paper presents an automated theorem prover for first-order logic, called C S E _ E 1.0, which is a combination of two provers contradiction separation extension (CSE) and E, where CSE is based on the recently-introduced multi-clause standard contradiction separation (S-CS) calculus for first-order logic and E is the well-known equational theorem prover for first-order logic based on superposition and rewriting. The motivation of the combined prover C S E _ E 1.0 is to (1) evaluate the capability, applicability and generality of C S E _ E , and (2) take advantage of novel multi-clause S-CS dynamic deduction of CSE and mature equality handling of E to solve more and harder problems. In contrast to other improvements of E, C S E _ E 1.0 optimizes E mainly from the inference mechanism aspect. The focus of the present work is given to the description of C S E _ E including its S-CS rule, heuristic strategies, and the S-CS dynamic deduction algorithm for implementation. In terms of combination, in order not to lose the capability of E and use C S E _ E to solve some hard problems which are unsolved by E, C S E _ E 1.0 schedules the running of the two provers in time. It runs plain E first, and if E does not find a proof, it runs plain CSE, then if it does not find a proof, some clauses inferred in the CSE run as lemmas are added to the original clause set and the combined clause set handed back to E for further proof search. C S E _ E 1.0 is evaluated through benchmarks, e.g., CASC-26 (2017) and CASC-J9 (2018) competition problems (FOFdivision). Experimental results show that C S E _ E 1.0 indeed enhances the performance of E to a certain extent.

scholarly journals Making Automatic Theorem Provers more Versatile

10.29007/n6j7 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Cruanes
Keyword(s):  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
Higher Order Logic ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
First Order ◽  
Theorem Provers ◽  
Smt Solvers ◽  
Automatic Theorem Provers ◽  
Automatic Theorem

We argue that automatic theorem provers should become more versatile and should be able to tackle problems expressed in richer input formats. Salient research directions include (i) developing tight combinations of SMT solvers and first-order provers; (ii) adding better handling of theories in first-order provers; (iii) adding support for inductive proving; (iv) adding support for user-defined theories and functions; and (v) bringing to the provers some basic abilities to deal with logics beyond first-order, such as higher-order logic.

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.).

Logical Tools

2021 ◽  
pp. 14-52
Author(s):  
Cian Dorr ◽  
John Hawthorne ◽  
Juhani Yli-Vakkuri
Keyword(s):  
Modal Logic ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Logic ◽  
First Order Logic ◽  
First Order ◽  
System P

This chapter presents the system of classical higher-order modal logic which will be employed throughout this book. Nothing more than a passing familiarity with classical first-order logic and standard systems of modal logic is presupposed. We offer some general remarks about the kind of commitment involved in endorsing this logic, and motivate some of its more non-standard features. We also discuss how talk about possible worlds can be represented within the system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document