Abstract
The resolution proof rule is a basic principle of many implementations of inference mechanisms (e.g. in logic programming). Mostly not resolution itself is implemented, but a restriction (or refinement) of resolution. There are a variety of resolution restrictions being used in theorem proving algorithms (see [14] or [13], pp.103 ff). The idea of these restrictions is to reduce the search space necessary for a deterministic implementation of the nondeterministic resolution rule. Only a few theoretical results on the complexity of resolution restrictions are known. Experimental results as in [18] are more typical.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
M. Ajtai, The complexity of the propositional pigeonhole principle, Proc. of the IEEE FOCS (1988).
W. Bibel, A comparative study of several proof procedures, Artificial Intelligence 18 (1982) 269–293.
S.R. Buss and G. Turan, Resolution proofs of generalized pigeonhole principles, Theoret. Comp. Sci. 62 (1988) 311–317.
V. Chvátal and E. Szemeredi, Many hard examples for resolution,J Assoc.comput.mach.35(4)(1988) 759–768
S.A. Cook and R.A. Reckhow, The relative efficiency of propositional proof systems, J. Symbolic Logic 44(1) (1979) 36–50.
E. Eder, Relative complexities of first order calculi, Habilitationsschrift, University of Dortmund (1990).
Z. Galil, On the complexity of regular resolution and the Davis-Putman procedure, Theoret. Comput. Sei. 4(1) (1977) 23–46.
A. Goerdt, Unrestricted resolution versus N-resolution, Proc. MFCS 1990, LNCS, accepted for publication.
9.Goerdt, Davis-Putmann resolution versus unrestricted resolution, Journal of Discrete Applied Mathematics, Special issue on proof lengths, accepted for publication.
A. Goerdt, Regular resolution versus unrestricted resolution, Technical report, University of Duisburg (1990) submitted.
A. Haken, The intractability of resolution, Theoret. Comp. Sci. 39 (1985), 297–308.
D.W. Loveland, Automated Theorem proving: a logical basis, (North Holland 1978).
U. Schöning, Logik für Informatiker, BI-Taschenbuch, Reihe Informatik 56 (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1987).
J. Siekmann and G. Wrightson (eds.), Automation of reasoning-classical papers on computational logic, vol. 1 and 2 (Springer 1983).
GS Tseitin, On the complexity of derivation in the propositional calculus (1970) in [13] vol. 2, 466–486.
A. Urquhart, Hard examples for resolution, J. Assoc. Comput. March 34 (1987) 209–219.
A. Urquhart, The complexity of Gentzen Systems for propositional logic, Theoret. Comp. Sci. 66 (1989) 87–97.
G.A. Wilson and C. Minker, Resolution, refinements, and search strategies: A comparative study, IEEE Transactions on Computers C-25 (1976) 782–801.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Goerdt, A. (1990). Comparing the Complexity of Regular and Unrestricted Resolution. In: Marburger, H. (eds) GWAI-90 14th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence. Informatik-Fachberichte, vol 251. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76071-6_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-76071-6_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-53132-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-76071-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive