Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recognizing unnecessary clauses in resolution based systems

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

Abstract

We concentrate on the problem of unnecessary inference in the context of resolution based systems. In such systems several strategies have been developed that allow for the delection of clauses without sacrificing completeness. Unfortunately these strategies fail to recognize other frequently generated unnecessary formulas. We will present a generalized subsumption theorem that can be used to recognize such formulas and to develop new deletion methods which retain completeness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Bibliography

  1. D. Benanav, Recognizing Unnecessary Inference, PhD thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1989).

  2. D. Benanav, ‘Simultaneous paramodulation’ 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction July 1990.

  3. R. Boyer, E. Lusk, W. McCune, R. Overbeek, M. Stickel and L. Wos, ‘Set theory in first-order logic: Clauses for Gödel's axioms’, Journal of Automated Reasoning 2, 287–327 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  4. R. Boyer and J. Moore, A Computational Logic, Academic Press (1979).

  5. A. Bundy, The Computer Modelling of Mathematical Reasoning, Academic Press (1983).

  6. C. Chang and R. Lee, Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving, Academic Press (1970).

  7. Dennis de Champeaux, ‘Subproblem finder and instance checker’, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 33, 633–657 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  8. N. Dershowitz, ‘Termination of rewriting’, in J.-P. Jouannaud (editor), Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Academic Press (1987).

  9. H. Gelernter, ‘A note on syntatic symmetry and the manipulation of formal systems by machine’, Information and Control 2, 80–89 (1959).

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. Gelernter and N. Rochester, ‘Intelligent behavior in problems-solving machines’, IBM Journal 2, 336–345 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. C. Gilmore, ‘An examination of the geometry theorem-proving machine’, Artificial Intelligence 1, 171–187 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. V. Guttag, D. Kapur and D. R. Musser, ‘On proving uniform termination and restricted, termination of rewriting systems’, Siam J. comput. 12, 189–214 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Hilbert, Foundations of Geometry, The Open Court Publishing Company (1938).

  14. D. Knuth and P. Bendix, ‘Simple word problems in universal algebras’. In Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, pp. 263–297, Pergamon Press (1970).

  15. D. Lankford, ‘Canonical inference’, Report ATP-32, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, Univ. of Texas, Austin, Texas (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. S. Lankford, ‘Some approaches to equality for computational logic: A survey and assessement’. Memo ATP-36, Automatic Theorem Proving Project, University of Texas, Austin (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  17. D. W. Loveland, Automated Theorem Proving: A Logical Basis, North-Holland (1978).

  18. E. Lusk, ‘Itp at Argonne National Laboratory’, In J. Siekmann (editor), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 230, pp. 698–699. Springer-Verlag, New York (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, ‘The automated reasoning system itp’, Technical Report ANL-84–27, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL (1984).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  21. W. McCune, ‘Unskolemizing clause sets’, Information Processing Letters 29, 257–263 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  22. W. McCune, ‘Otter 1.0 users' guide’, Technical Report ANL-88–44, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  23. G. Peterson, ‘A technique for establishing completeness results in theorem proving with equality’, SIAM J. Computing 12, 82–99 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  24. A. Quaife, ‘Automated development of Tarski's geometry’, Journal of Automated Reasoning 5, 97–118 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Robinson, ‘A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle’, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 12, 23–41 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  26. I. Vaisman, Foundations of Three-Dimensional Geometry, Marcel Decker, Inc., New York (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  27. L. Wos, 33 Basic Research Problems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  28. L. Wos, R. Overbeek, E. Lusk and J. Boyle, Automated Reasoning: Introduction and Applications, Prentice-Hall (1984).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer and Information Science Department, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 07102, Newark, New Jersey, USA

    Dan Benanav

Authors
  1. Dan Benanav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Benanav, D. Recognizing unnecessary clauses in resolution based systems. J Autom Reasoning 9, 43–76 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00247826

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00247826

Key words

Search

Navigation