Embedding deduction modulo into a prover

Deduction modulo consists in presenting a theory through rewrite rules to support automatic and interactive proof search. It induces proof search methods based on narrowing, such as the polarized resolution modulo. We show how to combine this method with more traditional ordering restrictions. Interestingly, no compatibility between the rewriting and the ordering is requested to ensure completeness. We also show that some simplification rules, such as strict subsumption eliminations and demodulations, preserve completeness. For this purpose, we use a new framework based on a proof ordering. These results show that polarized resolution modulo can be integrated into existing provers, where these restrictions and simplifications are present. We also discuss how this integration can actually be done by diverting the main algorithm of state-of-the-art provers.

[1]  Delia Kesner,et al.  Theory and applications of explicit substitutions: Introduction , 2001, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[2]  Richard Bonichon,et al.  A Semantic Completeness Proof for TaMeD , 2006, LPAR.

[3]  Leo Bachmair,et al.  Proof Normalization for Resolution and Paramodulation , 1989, RTA.

[4]  Claude Kirchner,et al.  HOL-λσ: an intentional first-order expression of higher-order logic , 2001, Mathematical Structures in Computer Science.

[5]  Larry Wos,et al.  Efficiency and Completeness of the Set of Support Strategy in Theorem Proving , 1965, JACM.

[6]  Gilles Dowek,et al.  Proof normalization modulo , 2003, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[7]  Harald Ganzinger,et al.  Superposition with equivalence reasoning and delayed clause normal form transformation , 2005, Inf. Comput..

[8]  William H. Joyner Resolution Strategies as Decision Procedures , 1976, JACM.

[9]  Gilles Dowek,et al.  What Is a Theory? , 2002, STACS.

[10]  Tobias Nipkow,et al.  Term rewriting and all that , 1998 .

[11]  Olivier Hermant Méthodes sémantiques en déduction modulo , 2005 .

[12]  Olivier Hermant,et al.  Resolution is Cut-Free , 2010, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[13]  Guillaume Burel,et al.  How can we prove that a proof search method is not an instance of another? , 2009, LFMTP '09.

[14]  Harald Ganzinger,et al.  Rewrite-Based Equational Theorem Proving with Selection and Simplification , 1994, J. Log. Comput..

[15]  Claude Kirchner,et al.  Regaining cut admissibility in deduction modulo using abstract completion , 2010, Inf. Comput..

[16]  Gilles Dowek,et al.  Polarized Resolution Modulo , 2010, IFIP TCS.

[17]  Claude Kirchner,et al.  Theorem Proving Modulo , 2003, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[18]  Gilles Dowek,et al.  Truth Values Algebras and Proof Normalization , 2006, TYPES.

[19]  Nachum Dershowitz,et al.  Orderings for term-rewriting systems , 1979, 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979).

[20]  Geoff Sutcliffe,et al.  Progress in the Development of Automated Theorem Proving for Higher-Order Logic , 2009, CADE.

[21]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Embedding Pure Type Systems in the Lambda-Pi-Calculus Modulo , 2007, TLCA.

[22]  Gilles Dowek,et al.  Arithmetic as a Theory Modulo , 2005, RTA.