Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Unrestricted resolution versus N-resolution

  • Communications
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1990 (MFCS 1990)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 452))

Abstract

An N-resolution proof is a resolution proof in which the resolution rule is restricted: One clause to which it is applied must only consist of negative literals. N-resolution is complete. ([8], p. 109,

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. M. Ajtai, The complexity of the propositional pigeonhole principle, Proc. of the IEEE FOCS (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. R. Buss and G. Turán, Resolution proofs of generalized pigeonhole principles, Theoret. Comp. Sci. 62 (1988) 311–317.

    Google Scholar 

  3. V. Chvátal and E. Szemeredi, Many hard examples for resolution, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 35(4) (1988) 759–768.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Goerdt, Davis Putnam resolution versus unrestricted resolution, Journal of Discrete Applied Mathematics, Special issue on proof lengths, accepted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Goerdt, Regular resolution versus unrestricted resolution, Technical report, Univ. of Duisburg, submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Haken, The intractability of resolution, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 39 (1985) 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. A. Robinson, Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution, (1965), in [11] vol. 1, 416–423.

    Google Scholar 

  8. U. Schöning, Logik für Informatiker, BI-Taschenbuch, Reihe Informatik 56 (Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. E. Stickel, An introduction to automated deduction, Fundamentals of artificial intelligence (Bibel, Jorrand eds.), Lect. Notes of Comp. Sci. 132 (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1986) 75–137.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. E. Stickel, A PROLOG technology theorem prover: Implementation by an extended PROLOG compiler, J. of Automated Reasoning 4 (1988) 353–380.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. Siekmann, G. Wrightson (eds.), Automation of reasoning — classical papers on computational logic, vol.1 and 2, Springer (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. A. Wilson, C. Minker, Resolution, refinements and search strategies: A comparative study, IEEE Transactions on Computers C-25 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Urquhart,Hard examples for resolution, J. Assoc. Comput. March 34 (1987), 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität -GH- Duisburg, FB 11, Praktische Informatik, Lotharstraße 65, D-4100, Duisburg, West-Germany

    Andreas Goerdt

Authors
  1. Andreas Goerdt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Branislav Rovan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Goerdt, A. (1990). Unrestricted resolution versus N-resolution. In: Rovan, B. (eds) Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1990. MFCS 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 452. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0029622

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0029622

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-52953-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47185-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation