Abstract
A binary resolution proof is represented by a binary resolution tree (brt) with clauses at the nodes and resolutions being performed at the internal nodes. A rotation in a brt can be performed on two adjacent internal nodes if the result of reversing the order of the resolutions does not affect the clause recorded at the node closer to the root. Two brts are saidto be rotationally equivalent if one can be obtained from the other by a sequence of rotations. Let c(T) be the number of brts rotationally equivalent to T. It is shown that if T has n resolutions, all on distinct atoms, and m merges or factors between literals, then c(T) ≥ 2(su)2n-gQ(mlog(n/m))
Moreover c(T) can be as large as n!/(m+1). A-ordering, lock resolution andthe rank/activity restriction avoidcalculating equivalent brts. A dynamic programming polynomial-time algorithm is also given to calculate c(T) if T has no merges or factors.
Research supported by a grant from NSERC of Canada
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R.S. Boyer. Locking: a Restriction of Resolution. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1971.
Chin-Liang Chang and Richard Char-Tung Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, New York and London, 1973.
Hans de Nivelle. Resolution games and non-liftable resolution orderings. Collegium Logicum, Annals of the Kurt Gödel Society, 2:1–20, 1996.
Andreas Goerdt. Regular resolution versus unrestricted resolution. SIAM Journal on Computing, 22:661–683, 1993.
J.D. Horton and B. Spencer. Clause trees: a tool for understanding and implementing resolution in automatedreasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 92:25–89, 1997.
J.D. Horton and B. Spencer. Rank/activity: a canonical form for binary resolution.In C. Kirchner and H. Kirchner, editors, Automated Deduction-CADE-15, LNAI 1421:412–426, Lindau, Germany, July 1998. Springer.
J. Reynolds. Seminar notes. Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, 1965.
J.A. Robinson. A machine-orientedlogic basedon the resolution principle. J. ACM, 12:23–41, 1965.
Bruce Spencer. Avoiding duplicate proofs with the foothold refinement. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 12:117–140, 1994.
Bruce Spencer and J.D. Horton. Efficient algorithms to detect andrestore minimality, an extension of the regular restriction of resolution. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 25:1–34, 2000.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Horton, J.D. (2001). Counting the Number of Equivalent Binary Resolution Proofs. In: Nieuwenhuis, R., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2250. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45653-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45653-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42957-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45653-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive