Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A prolog technology theorem prover: Implementation by an extended prolog compiler

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

Abstract

A Prolog technology theorem prover (PTTP) is an extension of Prolog that is complete for the full first-order predicate calculus. It differs from Prolog in its use of unification with the occurs check for soundness, the model-elimination reduction rule that is added to Prolog inferences to make the inference system complete, and depth-first iterative-deepening search instead of unbounded depthfirst search to make the search strategy complete. A Prolog technology theorem prover has been implemented by an extended Prolog-to-LISP compiler that supports these additional features. It is capable of proving theorems in the full first-order predicate calculus at a rate of thousands of inferences per second.

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

References

  1. Andrews, P. B., ‘Theorem proving via general matings’, Journal of the ACM 28, 2 (April 1981) 193–214.

    Google Scholar 

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

  3. Bayerl, S., Kurfess, F., Letz, R., and Schumann, J., ‘PROTHEO/2: sequential PROLOG-like theorem prover based on the connection method’ (1986).

  4. Bibel, W., Automated Theorem Proving. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, West Germany (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Butler, R., Lusk, E., McCune, W., and Overbeek, R., ‘Paths to high-performance automated theorem proving’. Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Automated Deduction, Oxford, England (July 1986) 588–597.

  6. Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J. S., ‘The sharing of structure in theorem-proving programs’. In B.Meltzer and D.Michie (eds.). Machine Intelligence 7. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bürckert, H. J., Wang, H., and Zheng, R., ‘MKRP: a performance test by working mathematicians’. Memo SEKI-83-1, Institut für Informatik I, Universität Karlsruhe Karlsruhe, West Germany (1983).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, J., ‘Describing Prolog by its interpretation and compilation’. Communications of the ACM 28, 12 (December 1985) 1311–1324.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Colmerauer, A., ‘Prolog and infinite trees’. In Clark, K. L. and Tarnlund, S. A. (eds.). Logic Programming. Academic Press, New York, New York (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eder, G. ‘A PROLOG-like interpreter for non-Horn clauses’. D.A.I. Research Report No. 26, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, September (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fleisig, S., Loveland, D., SmileyIII, A. K., and Yarmush, D. L., ‘An implementation of the model climination proof procedure’: Journal of the ACM 21, 1 (January 1974) 124–139.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Korf, R. E., Depth-first iterative-deepening: an optimal admissible tree search. Artificial Intelligence 27, 1 (September 1985) 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kowalski, R. and Kuehner, D., ‘Linear resolution with selection function’. Artificial Intelligence 2 (1971) 227–260.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lawrence, J. D. and Starkey, J. D., ‘Experimental tests of resolution based theorem-proving strategies’. Technical Report. Computer Science Department, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington (April 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Loveland, D. W., ‘A simplified format for the model elimination procedure’. Journal of the ACM 16, 3 (July 1969) 349–363.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. Loveland, D. W., ‘Automated theorem proving: mapping logic into AI’ Proceedings of the International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Knoxville, Tennessee (October 1986) 214–229.

  19. Loveland, D. W., ‘Near-Horn Prolog’. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Logic Programming, Melbourne, Australia (May 1987) 456–469.

  20. Loveland, D. W. and Stickel, M. E., ‘The hole in goal trees: some guidance from resolution theory’. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-25, 4 (April 1976) 335–341.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lusk, E. L., McCune, W. W., and Overbeek, R. A., Logic Machine Architecture: kernel functions’. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Automated Deduction, New York, New York (June 1982) 70–84.

  22. Lusk, E. L., McCune, W. W., and Overbeek, R. A., ‘Logic Machine Architecture: inference mechanisms’. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Automated Deduction, New York, New York (June 1982) 85–108.

  23. Lusk, E. L. and Overbeek, R. A., ‘A portable environment for research in automated reasoning’. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Automated Deduction, Napa, California (May 1984) 43–52.

  24. Malachi, Y., Nonclausal Logic Programming. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, March 1986.

  25. Michie, D., Ross, R., and Shannan, G. J., ‘G-deduction’. In B.Meltzer and D.Michie (eds.). Machine Intelligence 7. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York (1972) pp. 141–165.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nilsson, N. J., Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Tioga Publishing Co., Palo Alto, California (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Plaised, D. A., ‘A simplified problem reduction format’. Artificial Intelligence 18, 2 (March 1982) 227–261.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Plaisted, D. A., ‘Non-Horn clause logic programming without contrapositives’ (1987).

  29. Rao, V. N., Kumar, V., and Ramesh, K., ‘A parallel implementation of iterative-deepening A*’. Proceedings of the AAAI-87 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington (July 1987) 178–181.

  30. Raph, Karl Mark G., ‘The Markgraf Karl Refutation Procedure’. Memo SEKI-MK-84-01, Fachbereich Informatik, Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, West Germany (January 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Reboh, R., Raphael, B., Yates, R. A., Kling, R. E., and Verlarde, C., ‘Study of automatic theoremproving programs’. Technical Note, 75, Artificial Intelligence Center, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California (November 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shostak, R. E., ‘Refutation graphs’. Artificial Intelligence 7, 1 (Spring 1976) 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Slate, D. J., and Atkin, L. R., ‘CHESS 4.5 — The Northwestern University chess program’. In Frey, P. W. (ed.), Chess Skill in Man and Machine, Springer-Verlag, New York, New York (1977) 82–118.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stickel, M. E., ‘A Prolog technology theorem prover’. New Generation Computing 2, 4 (1984) 371–383.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Stickel, M. E. and Tyson, W. M., ‘An analysis of consecutively bounded depth-first search with applications in automated deduction’. Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, California (August 1985) 1073–1075.

  36. Umrigar, Z. D. and Pitchumani, V., ‘An experiment in programming with full first-order logic’. Proceedings of the 1985 Symposium on Logic Programming, Boston, Massachusetts (July 1985) 40–47.

  37. Warren, D. H. D., ‘An abstract Prolog instruction set’. Technical Note 309, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International Menlo Park, California (October 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilkins, D. E., ‘QUEST: a non-clausal theorem proving system’. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Essex, Essex, England, 1973.

  39. Wilson, G. A. and Minker, J., ‘Resolution, refinements, and search strategies: a comparative study’. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-25, 8 (August 1976) 782–801.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wos, L., Veroff, R., Smith, B., and McCune, W., ‘The linked inference principle, II: the user's viewpoint’. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Napa, California (May 1984) 316–332.

  41. Wos, L. T., Unpublished notes, Argonne National Laboratory (about 1965).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, 94025, Menlo Park, California, U.S.A.

    Mark E. Stickel

Authors
  1. Mark E. Stickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This is a revised and expanded version of a paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Oxford, England, July 1986.

This research was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under Contract N00039-84-K-0078 with the Naval Electronic Systems Command and by the National Science Foundation under Grant CCR-8611116. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, or the United States government. Approved for public release. Distribution unlimited.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stickel, M.E. A prolog technology theorem prover: Implementation by an extended prolog compiler. J Autom Reasoning 4, 353–380 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00297245

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00297245

Key words

Search

Navigation