Skip to main content

Using Examples, Case Analysis, and Dependency Graphs in Theorem Proving

  • Conference paper
7th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE 1984)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 170))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The use of examples seems to be fundamental to human methods of proving and understanding theorems. Whether the examples are drawn on paper or simply visualized, they seem to be more common in theorem proving and understanding by humans than in textbook proofs using the syntactic transformations of formal logic. What is the significance of this use of examples, and how can it be exploited to get better theorem provers and better interaction of theorem provers with haman users? We present a theorem proving strategy which seems to mimic the human tendency to use examples, and has other features in common with human theorem proving methods. This strategy may be useful in itself, as well as giving insight into human thought processes. This strategy proceeds by finding relevant facts, connecting them together by causal relations, and abstracting the causal dependencies to obtain a proof. The strategy can benefit by examining several examples to observe common features in their causal dependencies before abstracting to obtain a general proof. Also, the strategy often needs to perform a case analysis to obtain a proof, with different examples being used for each case, and a systematic method of linking the proofs of the cases to obtain a general proof. The method distinguishes between positive and negative literals in a nontrivial way, similar to the different perceptions people have of the logically equivalent statements AB and (¬ B) ⊃ (¬ A). This work builds on earlier work of the author on abstraction strategies [17] and problem redaction methods [18], and also on recent artificial intelligence work on annotating facts with explanatory information [6,7,9]. This method differs from the abstraction strategy in that it is possible to choose a different abstraction for each case in a case analysis proof; there are other differences as well. For other recent work concerning the use of examples in theorem proving see [1] and [2].

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under grant MCS 81-09831.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ballantyne, A., and Bledsoe, W., On generating and using examples in proof discovery, Machine Intelligence 10 (Harwood, Chichester, 1982) 3–39.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bledsoe, W., Using examples to generate instantiations for set variables, IJCAI(1983)892–901.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brand, D., Proving theorems with the modification method, SIAM J. Comput. 4 (1975)412–430.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang, C., The decomposition principle for theorem proving systems, Proc. Tenth Annual Allerton Conference on Circuit and System Theory, University of Illinois(1972)20–28.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chang, C. and Lee, R., Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving (Academic Press, New York, 1973).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6. Charniak, E., Riesbeck, C., and McDermott, D., Data dependencies, Artificial Intelligence Programming (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., 1980) 193–226

    Google Scholar 

  7. Doyle, J., A truth maintenance system, Artificial Intelligence 12 (1979) 231–272.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Fay, M., First-order unification in an equational theory, Proceedings 4th Workshop on Automated Deduction, Austin, Texas (1979)161–167.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fikes, R., Deductive retrieval mechanisms for state description models, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Tbilisi, Georgia, USSR (1975) 99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gelernter, H., Realization of a geometry theorem-proving machine, Proe. IFIP Congr. (1959)273–282.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Henschen, L. and Wos, L., Unit refutations and Horn sets, J. ACM 21(1974)590–605.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Huet, G., An algorithm to generate the basis of solutions to homogeneous linear diophantine equations, Information Processing Letters 17 (1978)144–147.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Huet, G. and Oppen, D., Equations and rewrite rules: a survey, in Formal Languages: Perspectives and Open Problems (R. Book, ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lankford, D., Canonical algebraic simplification in computational logic, Memo ATP-25, Automatic Theorem Proving Project, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Loveland, D., Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis (North-Holland, New York, 1978).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Plaisted, D., An efficient relevance criterion for mechanical theorem proving, Proceedings of the First Annual National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford University, August, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Plaisted, D., Theorem proving with abstraction, Artificial Intelligence 16 (1981) 47–108.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Plaisted, D., A simplified problem reduction format, Artificial Intelligence 18 (1982)227–261.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Reiter, R., A semantically guided deductive system for automatic theorem proving, Proc. 3rd IJCAI (1973 41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Slagle, J., Automatic theorem proving with renamable and semantic resolution, J. ACM 14 (1967) 687–697.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Stickel, M., A unification algorithm for associative-commutative functions, J. ACM 28 (1981)423–434.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Plaisted, D.A. (1984). Using Examples, Case Analysis, and Dependency Graphs in Theorem Proving. In: Shostak, R.E. (eds) 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction. CADE 1984. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 170. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34768-4_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34768-4_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-96022-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-34768-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics