Abstract
Proof planning is an automated theorem proving technique which encodes meaningful blocks of proof as planning operators called methods. Methods often encode complex control strategies, and a language of methodicals, similar to tacticals, has been developed to allow methods to be expressed in a modular way.
Previous work has demonstrated that proof planning can be effective for interactive theorem proving, but it has not been clear how to reconcile the complex control encoded by methodicals with the needs of interactive theorem proving.
In this paper we develop an operational semantics for methodicals which allows reasoning about proof plans in the abstract, without generating object-level proofs, and facilitates interactive planning. The semantics is defined by a handful of deterministic transition rules, represents disjunction and backtracking in the planning process explicitly, and handles the cut methodical correctly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Serge Autexier Axel Schairer and Dieter Hutter. A pragmatic approach to reuse in tactical theorem proving. In Maria Paola Bonacina and Bernhard Gramlich, editors, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 58. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2001.
C. Benzmüller, L. Cheikhrouhou, D Fehrer, A. Fiedler, X. Huang, M. Kerber, K. Kohlhase, A Meirer, E. Melis, W. Schaarschmidt, J. Siekmann, and V. Sorge. Ωmega: Towards a mathematical assistant. In W. McCune, editor, 14 th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 252–255. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, J. Hesketh, and A. Smaill. Experiments with proof plans for induction. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 7:303–324, 1991. Earlier version available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No 413.
Arie de Bruin and Erik P. de Vink. Continuation semantics for PROLOG with cut. In TAPSOFT, Vol.1, pages 178–192, 1989.
M. J. Gordon, A. J. Milner, and C. P. Wadsworth. Edinburgh LCF-A mechanised logic of computation, volume 78 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1979.
A. Ireland and A. Bundy. Productive use of failure in inductive proof. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 16(1-2):79–111, 1996. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No 716.
M. Jamnik, M. Kerber, and M. Pollet. Automatic learning in proof planning. In F. van Harmelen, editor, Proceedings of 15th ECAI. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer Verlag, Forthcoming.
Richard B. Kieburtz. A logic for rewriting strategies. In Maria Paola Bonacina and Bernhard Gramlich, editors, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 58. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2001.
D. Lacey, J. D. C. Richardson, and A. Smaill. Logic program synthesis in a higher order setting. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic (CL2000), volume 1861 of Lecture Notes in AI, pages 912–925. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
H. Lowe and D. Duncan. XBarnacle: Making theorem provers more accessible. In William McCune, editor, 14th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 404–408. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
E. Melis and J. Siekmann. Knowledge-based proof planning. Artificial Intelligence, 1999.
J. D. C. Richardson and A. Smaill. Continuations of proof strategies. In International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning, IJCAR-2001-Short Papers, June 2001. Technical Report DII 11/01, Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Università di Siena, Italy.
J. D. C Richardson, A. Smaill, and I. M. Green. System description: proof planning in higher-order logic with IClam. In Claude Kirchner and Hélène Kirchner, editors, 15th International Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 1421 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Lindau, Germany, July 1998.
J. Siekmann, S. Hess, C. Benzmueller, L. Cheikhrouhou, A. Fiedler, H. Horacek, M. Kohlhase, K. Konrad, A. Meier, E. Melis, and V. Sorge. Loui: Lovely Omegauser interface. Formal Aspects of Computing, 3:1–18, 1999.
Eelco Visser. Stratego: A language for program transformation based on rewriting strategies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science volume 2051, 2001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Richardson, J. (2002). A Semantics for Proof Plans with Applications to Interactive Proof Planning. In: Baaz, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2514. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36078-6_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36078-6_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00010-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36078-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive