Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The linked inference principle, I: The formal treatment

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we present a detailed, formal treatment of the linked inference principle, and we apply this principle to obtain the abstract formulations of various linked inference rules. Included among such rules are linked UR-resolution, linked hyperresolution, and linked binary resolution, each of which generalizes the corresponding standard and well-known inference rule. In addition to the formalism, we discuss the motivation and objectives for the formulation of linked inference rules. We also include experimental results and numerous examples. In particular, we show how and why the effectiveness of an automated reasoning program can be, and often is, markedly increased by relying on the linked version rather than the more familiar standard version of an inference rule.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Andrews, P. (1968), ‘Resolution with merging’, Journal of the ACM 15, 367–381.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews, P. (1976), ‘Refutations by matings’, IEEE Transactions on Computers C 25, 801–807.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Antoniou, G., and Ohlbach, H. (1983), ‘Terminator’, Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe West Germany, pp. 916–919.

  4. Bibel, W. (1987), Automated Theorem Proving, 2nd edn., Vieweg Verlag, Braunschweig, West Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bledsoe, W., and Hines, L. (1980), ‘Variable elimination and chaining in a resolution-based prover for inequalities’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 87, W. Bibel and R. Kowalski (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 70–87.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boyer, R., and Moore, J (1988), A Computational Logic Handbook, Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clocksin, W., and Mellish, C. (1984), Programming in Prolog, 2nd edn., Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, M. (1963), ‘Eliminating the irrelevant from mechanical proofs’, Experimental Arithmetic, High Speed Computing and Mathematics, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 15, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., pp. 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dixon, J. (1973), ‘Z-resolution: Theorem proving with compiled axioms’, Journal of the ACM 20, 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirchner, C. (ed.) (1989), Special Issue on Unification, Journal of Symbolic Computation 7.

  11. Kowalski, R. (1975), ‘A proof procedure based on connection graphs’, Journal of the ACM 22, 572–595.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kowalski, R. (1979), Logic for Problem Solving, Elsevier North-Holland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Loveland, D. (1969), A simplified format for the model elimination procedure’, Journal of the ACM 16, 349–363.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Loveland, D. (1969), ‘Theorem-provers combining model elimination and resolution’, Machine Intelligence 4, B. Meltzer and D. Michie (Eds.) Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lukasiewicz, J. (1970), ‘The equivalential calculus’, Jan Lukasiewicz: Selected Works, L. Borkowski (Ed.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 250–277.

    Google Scholar 

  16. McCharen, J., Overbeek, R., and Wos, L. (1976), ‘Complexity and related enhancements for automated theorem-proving programs’, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 2, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McCune, W. (1990a), OTTER 2.0 Users Guide, Technical Report ANL-90/9, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McCune, W. (1990b), ‘Experiments with discrimination tree indexing and path indexing for term retrieval’, Journal of Automated Reasoning (to appear).

  19. Moore, J (1984), personal communication.

  20. Overbeek, R. (1975), ‘An implementation of hyper-resolution’, Computational Mathematics with Applications 1, 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Robinson, G., and Wos, L. (1969), ‘Paramodulation and theorem-proving in first-order theories with equality’, Machine Intelligence 4, B. Meltzer and D. Michie (Eds.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 135–150.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Robinson, J. (1965), ‘A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle’, Journal of the ACM 12, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Robinson, J. (1965), ‘Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution’, International Journal of Computer Mathematics 1, 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shostak, R. E. (1976), ‘Refutation graphs’, Artificial Intelligence 7, 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Siekmann, J. (1989), ‘Unification theory’, p. 207 in [10].

  26. Smith, B. (1988), Reference Manual for the Environmental Theorem Prover, An Incarnation of AURA, Technical Report ANL-88–2, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stickel, M. (1985), ‘Automated deduction by theory resolution’, Journal of Automated Reasoning 1, 333–355.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stickel, M. (1988), ‘A Prolog technology theorem prover: Implementation by an extended Prolog compiler’, Journal of Automated Reasoning 4, 353–380.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Veroff, R., and Henschen, L. (1981), ‘Application of automatic transformations to program verification’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1, A. Drinan (Ed.), Vancouver, British Columbia, pp. 472–479.

  30. Wos, L., Carson, D., and Robinson, G. (1964), ‘The unit preference strategy in theorem proving’, Proceedings of the AFIPS Conference 26, Spartan Books, Washington, D.C., pp. 615–621.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wos, L., Robinson, G., and Carson, D. (1965), ‘Efficiency and completeness of the set of support strategy in theorem proving’, Journal of the ACM 12, 536–541.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wos, L., Overbeek, R., and Henschen, L. (1980), ‘Hyperparamodulation: A refinement of paramodulation’, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 87, W. Bibel and R. Kowalski (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 208–219.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wos, L., Overbeek, R., Lusk, E., and Boyle, J. (1984), Automated Reasoning: Introduction and Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.; 2nd edn., McGraw-Hill 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wos, L., Veroff, R., Smith, B., and McCune, W. (1984), ‘The linked inference principle, II: The user's viewpoint’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 170, R. Shostak (Ed.), springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 316–332.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wos, L., and McCune, W. (1986), ‘Negative paramodulation’, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 230, J. Siekmann (Ed.), Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wos, L. (1987), Automated Reasoning: 33 Basic Research Problems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wos, L., and McCune, W. (1990), ‘Automated theorem proving and logic programming: A natural symbiosis, Journal of Logic Programming (to appear).

  38. Yates, R., Raphael, B., and Hart, T. (1970), ‘Resolution graphs’, Artificial Intelligence 1, 257–289.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of New Mexico, 87131, Albuquerque, NM, USA

    Robert Veroff

  2. Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 60439-4801, Argonne, IL, USA

    Larry Wos

Authors
  1. Robert Veroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry Wos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This work was supported by the Applied Mathematical Sciences subprogram of the Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Veroff, R., Wos, L. The linked inference principle, I: The formal treatment. J Autom Reasoning 8, 213–274 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00244283

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00244283

Key words