A refinement of paramodulation, called hyperparamodulation, is the focus of attention in this paper. Clauses obtained by the use of this inference rule are, in effect, the result of a sequence of paramodulations into one common nucleus. Among the interesting properties of hyperparamodulation are: first, clauses are chosen from among the input and designated as nuclei or "into" clauses for paramodulation; second, terms in the nucleus are starred to restrict the domain of generalized equality substitution; third, total control is thus iteratively established over all possible targets for paramodulation during the entire run of the theorem-proving program; and fourth, application of demodulation is suspended until the hyperparamodulant is completed. In contrast to these four properties which are reminiscent of the spirit of hyper-resolution, the following differences exist: first, the nucleus and the starred terms therein, which are analogous to negative literals, are determined by the user rather than by syntax; second, nuclei are not restricted to being mixed clauses; and third, while hyper-resolution requires inferred clauses to be positive, no corresponding requirement exists for clauses inferred by hyperparamodulation.
[1]
Ross A. Overbeek.
An implementation of hyper-resolution
,
1975
.
[2]
L. Wos,et al.
Automated generation of models and counterexamples and its application to open questions in Ternary Boolean algebra
,
1978,
MVL '78.
[3]
Larry Wos,et al.
Problems and Experiments for and with Automated Theorem-Proving Programs
,
1976,
IEEE Transactions on Computers.
[4]
E. L. Lusk,et al.
Semigroups, antiautomorphisms, and involutions: a computer solution to an open problem. I
,
1981
.
[5]
Ross A. Overbeek,et al.
Complexity and related enhancements for automated theorem-proving programs
,
1976
.