Inductive Completion by Ground Proof Transformation

Publisher Summary This chapter presents the example of Prolog that has shown the possible success of high-level programming with some powerful mathematical notation as language and an automated theorem-prover as an interpreter for its execution. One of the few serious challenges to this combination of first-order predicate logic and resolution theorem proving is provided to date by the language of term-equations together with rewrite-rule machines and the Knuth–Bendix completion procedure. The latter approach has important applications in the area of data-type specification, where term equations provide a natural specification language, whose expressive power and usefulness is well known from modern Algebra and the theory of recursive functions. Software specification through term-equations has the advantage that, by interpreting the equations as directed rewrite-rules, an easy to implement rewrite-rule machine allows their efficient application and, therefore, some means of rapid prototyping. The category of all models forms an equational variety, for which the usual equational reasoning is a complete proof procedure. In the variety, there are also certain initial or standard models that are important in practice because they capture some standard intuition; all data items in these models are denoted by terms without variables formed from the operators in the equations and, hence, they are finitely constructible.

[1]  David R. Musser,et al.  On proving inductive properties of abstract data types , 1980, POPL '80.

[2]  Wolfgang Küchlin Equational completion by proof transformation , 1986 .

[3]  Bruno Buchberger,et al.  A simplified proof of the characterization theorem for Gröbner-bases , 1980, SIGS.

[4]  James R. Slagle,et al.  Automated Theorem-Proving for Theories with Simplifiers Commutativity, and Associativity , 1974, JACM.

[5]  G. Huet,et al.  Equations and rewrite rules: a survey , 1980 .

[6]  Gérard P. Huet,et al.  Proofs by Induction in Equational Theories with Constructors , 1980, FOCS.

[7]  Richard Göbel,et al.  Ground Confluence , 1987, RTA.

[8]  H. Comon Sufficient Completness, Term Rewriting Systems and Anti-Unification , 1986 .

[9]  Bruno Buchberger,et al.  A criterion for detecting unnecessary reductions in the construction of Groebner bases , 1979, EUROSAM.

[10]  Franz Winkler Reducing the Complexity of the Knuth-Bendix Completion-Algorithm: A "Unification" of Different Approaches , 1985, European Conference on Computer Algebra.

[11]  Pierre Lescanne,et al.  Proving inductive equalities algorithms and implementation , 1986 .

[12]  Paliath Narendran,et al.  Only Prime Superpositions Need be Considered in the Knuth-Bendix Completion Procedure , 1988, J. Symb. Comput..

[13]  Bruno Buchberger,et al.  A critical-pair/completion algorithm for finitely generated ideals in rings , 1983, Logic and Machines.

[14]  Jean-Pierre Jouannaud,et al.  Proofs by induction in equational theories without constructors , 1985, Bull. EATCS.

[15]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Completion and Its Applications , 1989 .

[16]  Paliath Narendran,et al.  Proof by Induction Using Test Sets , 1986, CADE.

[17]  Bruno Buchberger,et al.  A criterion for eliminating unnecessary reductions in the Knuth-Bendix algorithm , 1983, SIGS.

[18]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Critical-pair criteria for the Knuth-Bendix completion procedure , 1986, SYMSAC '86.

[19]  Laurent Fribourg,et al.  A Strong Restriction of the Inductive Completion Procedure , 1986, J. Symb. Comput..

[20]  Deepak Kapur,et al.  Proof by Consistency , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[21]  David A. Plaisted,et al.  Semantic Confluence Tests and Completion Methods , 1985, Inf. Control..

[22]  Hélène Kirchner,et al.  Completion of a Set of Rules Modulo a Set of Equations , 1986, SIAM J. Comput..

[23]  Hélène Kirchner A General Inductive Completion Algorithm and Application to Abstract Data Types , 1984, CADE.

[24]  Zohar Manna,et al.  Proving termination with multiset orderings , 1979, CACM.