Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Heine–Borel Challenge Problem. In Honor of Woody Bledsoe

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

Abstract

Woody Bledsoe’s last challenge problem is the analogical transfer of the Heine–Borel theorem for real intervals to the two-dimensional case. This could not be solved by the up-to-then-known techniques of analogical theorem proving. The Heine–Borel theorem is a widely known result in mathematics. It is usually stated in the field of real numbers R1, and similar versions are also true in R2, in topology, and in metric spaces. This article shows how analogy-driven proof plan construction is applicable to this genuinely mathematical problem. Our goal here was to use a source proof plan of HB1 (the Heine–Borel theorem in R1) as a guide to automatically produce a proof plan of HB2 (the Heine–Borel theorem in R2). We were able to accomplish our goal by generating the target proof plan of HB2 by reformulation and analogical replay.

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.

References

  1. Bledsoe, W. W., Boyer, Robert S. and Henneman, W. H.: Computer proofs of limit theorems, Artificial Intelligence 3(1) (1972), 27–60.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bledsoe, W.: Non-resolution theorem proving, ficial Intelligence 9 (1977), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bledsoe, W. W.: The use of analogy in automatic proof discovery, Tech. Rep. AI-158-86, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, Austin, TX, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bledsoe, W.: Challenge problems in elementary analysis, Journal of Automated Reasoning 6 (1990), 341–359.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bledsoe, W. W.: Heine–Borel Theorem Analogy Example, Technical Report Memo ATP 124, University of Texas Computer Science Dept., Austin, TX, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bledsoe, W. W.: A precondition prover for analogy, BioSystems 34 (1995), 225–247.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bledsoe, W. W.: Abduction Rules, Technical Report Memo ATP 126, University of Texas Computer Science Dept., Austin, TX, August 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J. S.: integrating decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers: A case study of linear arithmetic, Machine Intelligence 11 (1988), 83–124.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bundy, A.: The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs, in E. Lusk and R. Overbeek (eds), Proc. 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-9) Vol. 310, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Argonne, 1988, pp. 111–120.

  10. Bundy, A., van Harmelen, F., Hesketh, J. and Smaill, A.: Experiments with proof plans for induction, J. Automated Reasoning 7 (1991), 303–324.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carbonell, J. G.: Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive problem solving and expertise acquisition, in R. S. Michalsky, J. G. Carbonell, and T. M. Mitchell (eds), Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publ., Los Altos, 1986, pp. 371–392.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Benzmueller, C., Cheikhrouhou, L. O., Fehrer, D., Fiedler, A., Huang, X., Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M., Konrad, K., Meier, A., Melis, E., Schaarschmidt, W., Siekmann, J. and Sorge, V.: OMEGA: Towards a mathematical assistant, in Proc. 14th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), Springer, Townsville, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Curien, R.: Outils pour la Preuve par Analogie, PhD thesis, Université Henri Poincaré, Nancy, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Deussen, P.: Halbgruppen und Automaten, Vol. 99 ofHeidelberger Taschenbücher, Springer, Berlin, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gordon, M., Milner, R. and Wadsworth, C. P.: Edinburgh LCF: A Mechanized Logic of Computation, Vol. 78 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hadamard, J.: The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Huang, X., Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M. and Richts, J.: Methods – the basic units for planning and verifying proofs, in Proceedings of Jahrestagung für Künstliche Intelligenz KI-94, Springer, Saarbrücken, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kling, R. E.: A paradigm for reasoning by analogy, Artificial Intelligence 2 (1971), 147–178.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kolbe, Th. and Walther, Ch.: Reusing proofs, in Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-94), Amsterdam, 1994.

  20. Kolbe, Th. and Walther, Ch.: Patching proofs for reuse, in N. Lavrac and S. Wrobel (eds), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Machine Learning 1995, Kreta, 1995.

  21. McCune, W. W.: OTTER 2. 0 users guide, Technical Report ANL-90/9, Argonne National Laboratory, Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne, Illinois, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Melis, E.: Analogies between Proofs – a Case Study, SEKI-Report SR-93-12, University of Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, 1993. Available from http://jswww.ags.uni-sb.de/pub/seki/index.html.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Melis, E.: Change of Representation in Theorem Proving by Analogy, SEKI-Report SR-93-07, University of Saarbrücken, Saarbrücken, 1993. Available from http://jswww.ags.uni-sb.de/pub/seki/index.html.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Melis, E.: Analogy in CLAM, Technical Report DAI Research Paper No 766, University of Edinburgh, AI Dept., Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh, 1995. Available from http://jswww.cs.uni-sb.de/"melis/.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Melis, E.: A model of analogy-driven proof-plan construction, in Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, 1995, pp. 182–189.

  26. Munyer, J. C.: Analogy as a Means of Discovery in Problem Solving and Learning, PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Melis, E. and Veloso, M.: Analogy makes proofs feasible, in D. Aha (ed.), AAAI-Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, Seattle, 1994, pp. 13–17.

  28. Owen, S.: Analogy for Automated Reasoning, Academic Press, New York, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Polya, G.: How to Solve It, Princeton University Press, 1945.

  30. Polya, G.: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Princeton University Press, 1954.

  31. Sehn, A. C.: DECLAME – eine deklarative Sprache zur Repräsentation von Methoden, Master's thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, 1995, published as SEKI Working Paper SWP-95-02.

  32. van der Waerden, B. L.: Wie der Beweis der Vermutung von Baudet gefunden wurde, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 28 (1964).

  33. Veloso, M. M.: Flexible strategy learning: Analogical replay of problem solving episodes, in Proc. of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1994, Seattle, WA, 1994.

  34. Wang, R.: The Use of Analogy in the PC System, Computer Science Department Memo, Univerity of Texas at Austin, May 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fachbereich Informatik, Universität des Saarlandes, D-66041, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Erica Melis

Authors
  1. Erica Melis
    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

Melis, E. The Heine–Borel Challenge Problem. In Honor of Woody Bledsoe. Journal of Automated Reasoning 20, 255–282 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005843328643

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005843328643

Search

Navigation