Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning

LPAR 2002: Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning pp 367–387Cite as

Proof Development with ΩMEGA: √2 Is Irrational

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2514))

Abstract

Freek Wiedijk proposed the well-known theorem about the irrationality of √2 as a case study and used this theorem for a comparison of fifteen (interactive) theorem proving systems, which were asked to present their solution (see [48]).

This represents an important shift of emphasis in the field of automated deduction away from the somehow artificial problems of the past as represented, for example, in the test set of the TPTP library [45] back to real mathematical challenges.

In this paper we present an overview of the Ωmega system as far as it is relevant for the purpose of this paper and show the development of a proof for this theorem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S. Allen, R. Constable, R. Eaton, C. Kreitz, and L. Lorigo. The Nuprl open logical environment. In McAllester [29].

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Andrews, M. Bishop, S. Issar, D. Nesmith, F. Pfenning, and H. Xi. TPS: A theorem proving system for classical type theory. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 16(3):321–353, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. R. Bartle and D. Sherbert. Introduction to Real Analysis. Wiley, 2 edition, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Benzmüller. Equality and Extensionality in Higher-Order Theorem Proving. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Saarland University, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. C. Benzmüller, M. Bishop, and V. Sorge. Integrating TPS and Ωmega. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 5:188–207, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C. Benzmüller, A. Fiedler, A. Meier, and M. Pollet. Irrationality of √2 - a case study in Ωmega. Seki-Report SR-02-03, Department of Computer Science, Saarland University, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  7. C. Benzmüller and M. Kohlhase. LEO-a higher-order theorem prover. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-15), LNAI, LINDAU, Germany, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. C. Benzmüller, A. Meier, and V. Sorge. Bridging theorem proving and mathematical knowledge retrieval. In Festschrift in Honour of Jörg Siekmann’s 60s Birthday, LNAI, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Benzmüller and V. Sorge. A blackboard architecture for guiding interactive proofs. In Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, Applications (AIMSA’ 98), LNAI, Sozopol, Bulgaria, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. C. Benzmüller and V. Sorge. Ω-Ants-An open approach at combining Interactive and Automated Theorem Proving. In M. Kerber and M. Kohlhase, editors, Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on the Integration of Symbolic Computation and Mechanized Reasoning (Calculemus-2000). AK Peters, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Bishop and P. Andrews. Selectively instantiating definitions. In H. Kirchner, editors. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Automated Deduction, number 1421 in LNAI. Springer Verlag, 1998. Kirchner and Kirchner [26].

    Google Scholar 

  12. W. Bledsoe. Challenge problems in elementary calculus. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 6:341–359, 1990.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, number 310 in LNCS, pages 111–120, Argonne, Illinois, USA, 1988. Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. A. Bundy, editor. Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Automated Deduction, number 814 in LNAI, Nancy, France, 1994. Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  15. B. Char, K. Geddes, G. Gonnet, B. Leong, M. Monagan, and S. Watt. First leaves: a tutorial introduction to Maple V. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1992.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. L. Cheikhrouhou and J. Siekmann. Planning diagonalization proofs. In F. Giunchiglia, editor, Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, Applications (AIMSA’ 98), pages 167–180, Sozopol, Bulgaria, 1998. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, LNAI 1480.

    Google Scholar 

  17. L. Cheikhrouhou and V. Sorge. PDS-A Three-Dimensional Data Structure for Proof Plans. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial and Computational Intelligence (ACIDCA’2000), 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Church. A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5:56–68, 1940.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Coq Development Team. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual. INRIA. see http://coq.inria.fr/doc/main.html.

  20. A. Fiedler. P.rex: An interactive proof explainer. In R. Goré, A. Leitsch, and T. Nipkow, editors, Automated Reasoning-1st International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2001, number 2083 in LNAI. Springer, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Fiedler. User-adaptive proof explanation. PhD thesis, Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät I, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Franke and M. Kohlhase. System description: MBase, an open mathematical knowledge base. In McAllester [29].

    Google Scholar 

  23. H. Gebhard. Beweisplanung für die beweise der vollständigkeit verschiedener reso-lutionskalküle in Ωmega. Master’s thesis, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. Gordon and T. Melham. Introduction to HOL-A theorem proving environment for higher order logic. Cambridge University Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  25. X. Huang. Reconstructing Proofs at the Assertion Level. In Bundy [14], pages 738–752.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner, editors. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Automated Deduction, number 1421 in LNAI. Springer Verlag, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  27. H. Kirchner and C. Ringeissen, editors. Frontiers of combining systems: Third International Workshop, FroCoS 2000, volume 1794 of LNAI. Springer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Kohlhase and A. Franke. MBase: Representing knowledge and context for the integration of mathematical software systems. Journal of Symbolic Computation; Special Issue on the Integration of Computer algebra and Deduction Systems, 32(4):365–402, September 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. McAllester, editor. Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Automated Deduction, number 1831 in LNAI. Springer, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  30. A. Meier. TRAMP: Transformation of Machine-Found Proofs into Natural Deduction Proofs at the Assertion Level. In McAllester [29].

    Google Scholar 

  31. A. Meier, M. Pollet, and V. Sorge. Classifying Isomorphic Residue Classes. In R. Moreno-Diaz, B. Buchberger, and J.-L. Freire, editors, A Selection of Papers from the 8th International Workshop on Computer Aided Systems Theory (Euro-CAST 2001), volume 2178 of LNCS, pages 494–508. Springer Verlag, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Meier, M. Pollet, and V. Sorge. Comparing approaches to the exploration of the domain of residue classes. Journal of Symbolic Computation, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  33. E. Melis. Island planning and refinement. Seki-Report SR-96-10, Department of Computer Science, Saarland University, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  34. E. Melis and A. Meier. Proof planning with multiple strategies. In J. Loyd, V. Dahl, U. Furbach, M. Kerber, K. Lau, C. Palamidessi, L.M. Pereira, Y. Sagi-vand, and P. Stuckey, editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic, volume 1861 of LNAI, pages 644–659. Springer-Verlag, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  35. E. Melis and J. Siekmann. Knowledge-based proof planning. Artificial Intelligence, 115(1):65–105, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. E. Melis, J. Zimmer, and T. Müller. Integrating constraint solving into proof planning. In C. Ringeissen, editors. Frontiers of combining systems: Third International Workshop, FroCoS 2000, volume 1794 of LNAI. Springer, 2000. Kirchner and Ringeissen [27].

    Google Scholar 

  37. S. Owre, S. Rajan, J.M. Rushby, N. Shankar, and M. Srivas. PVS: Combining specification, proof checking, and model checking. In R. Alur and T. Henzinger, editors, Computer-Aided Verification, CAV’ 96, volume 1102 of LNCS, pages 411–414, New Brunswick, NJ, 1996. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  38. J. Richardson, A. Smaill, and I. Green. System description: Proof planning in higher-order logic with λclam. In H. Kirchner, editors. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Automated Deduction, number 1421 in LNAI. Springer Verlag, 1998. Kirchner and Kirchner [26].

    Google Scholar 

  39. M. Schönert et a1. GAP-Groups, Algorithms, and Programming. Lehrstuhl D für Mathematik, Rheinisch Westfälische Technische Hochschule, Aachen, Germany, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  40. J. Siekmann, C. Benzmüller, V. Brezhnev, L. Cheikhrouhou, A. Fiedler, A. Franke, H. Horacek, M. Kohlhase, A. Meier, E. Melis, M. Moschner, I. Normann, M. Pollet, V. Sorge, C. Ullrich, C.-P. Wirth, and J. Zimmer. Proof development with Ωmega. In Voronkov [47], pages 143–148. See http://www.ags.uni-sb.de/~omega/.

  41. J. Siekmann, C. Benzmüller, A. Fiedler, A. Meier, and M. Pollet. Proof development with Ωmega: √2 is not rational. Special Issue of Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2002. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  42. J. Siekmann, S. Hess, C. Benzmüller, L. Cheikhrouhou, A. Fiedler, H. Horacek, M. Kohlhase, K. Konrad, A. Meier, E. Melis, M. Pollet, and V. Sorge. LOUI: Lovely Ωmega User Interface. Formal Aspects of Computing, 11:326–342, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. V. Sorge. Non-Trivial Computations in Proof Planning. In C. Ringeissen, editors. Frontiers of combining systems: Third International Workshop, FroCoS 2000, volume 1794 of LNAI. Springer, 2000. Kirchner and Ringeissen [27].

    Google Scholar 

  44. V. Sorge. Ω-Ants-A Blackboard Architecture for the Integration of Reasoning Techniques into Proof Planning. PhD thesis, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  45. G. Sutcliffe, C. Suttner, and T. Yemenis. The TPTP problem library. In Bundy [14].

    Google Scholar 

  46. The Ωmega group. POST. See at http://www.ags.uni-sb.de/~omega/primer/post.html.

  47. A. Voronkov, editor. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Automated Deduction, number 2392 in LNAI. Springer Verlag, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  48. F. Wiedijk. The fifteen provers of the world. Unpublished Draft, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  49. J. Zimmer and M. Kohlhase. System description: The mathweb software bus for distributed mathematical reasoning. In Voronkov [47], pages 138–142.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FR 6.2 Informatik, Universität des Saarlandes, 66041, Saarbrücken, Germany

    J. Siekmann, C. Benzmüller, A. Fiedler, A. Meier & M. Pollet

Authors
  1. J. Siekmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Benzmüller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Fiedler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Pollet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Theoretische Informatik, Institut für Algebra und Diskrete Mathematik, Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10, 1040, Wien, Austria

    Matthias Baaz

  2. Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Kilburn Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13, 9PL, UK

    Andrei Voronkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Siekmann, J., Benzmüller, C., Fiedler, A., Meier, A., Pollet, M. (2002). Proof Development with ΩMEGA: √2 Is Irrational. 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_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36078-6_25

  • 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation