Skip to main content

A Natural Proof System Based on Rewriting Techniques

  • Conference paper
  • 383 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 170))

Abstract

Theorem proving procedures for the propositional calculus have traditionally relied on syntactic manipulations of the formula to derive a proof. In particular, clausal theorem provers sometimes lose some of the obvious semantics present in the theorem, in the process of converting the theorem into an unnatural normal form. Most existing propositional theorem provers do not incorporate substitution of equals for equals as an inference rule. In this paper we develop a “natural” proof system for the propositional calculus, with the goal that most succinct mathematical proofs should be encodable as short formal proofs within the proof system.

The main distinctive features of NPS are:

  1. 1.

    The substitution principle for the equivalence connective is incorporated as an inference rule.

  2. 2.

    A limited version of the powerful ideas of extension, originally suggested by Tseitin, are exploited. Extension allows the introduction of auxiliary variables to stand for intermediate sub-formulas in the course of a proof.

  3. 3.

    Formulas are standardized by converting them into a normal form, while at the same time preserving the explicit semantics inherent in the formula.

  4. 4.

    A generalization of the semantic tree approach is used to perform case analysis on literals as well as sub-formulas.

  5. 5.

    Additional enhancements such as a generalization of resolution are suggested.

We show that from a complexity theoretic viewpoint NPS is at least as powerful as the resolution procedure. We further demonstrate formulas on which NPS fares better than resolution. Finally, since proofs in NPS usually resemble manual proofs, we feel that NPS is easily amenable to an interactive theorem prover.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S.K. Abdali and D.R. Musser, “A Proof Method based on Sequents and Unification,” Unpublished Manuscript (1982), G.E. R and D Center, Schenectady, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. Bibel, “Tautology Testing with a Generalized Matrix Reduction Method,” Theoretical Computer Science, 8 (1979), pp.31–44.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. C-L Chang and R.C. Lee, Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press (1973), New York.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. A. Cook and R. A. Reckhow, “The Relative Efficiency of Propositional Proof Systems,” J. of Symbolic Logic, 44 (1979), pp. 36–50.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Hsiang, Topics in Automated Theorem Proving and Program Generation. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Hsiang and N. Dershowitz, “Rewrite Methods for Clausal and Non-clausal Theorem Proving,” Proc. 10th EATCS Intl. Collq. on Automata, Languages, and Programming, (1983), Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S.C. Kleene, An Introduction to Metamathematics. (1952), Van Nostrand, New York.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Kowalski and P. Hayes, “Semantic Trees in Automatic Theorem Proving,” in Machine Intelligence 4, Meltzer and Michie, eds., Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. Krishnamurthy, “Short Proofs for Tricky Formulas,” Unpublished Manuscript, (1982), G.E. R and D Center, Schenectady, NY.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. B. Krishnamurthy and R. N. Moll, “Examples of Hard Tautologies in the Propositional Calculus,” Proc. of the Thirteenth ACM Symp. on Th. of Computing, (1981), pp. 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. Monien and E. Speckenmeyer, “3-Satisfiability is Testable in O(1.62r) Steps,” Bericht Nr. 3/1979 (1979), GH Paderborn, Fachbereich Mathematik-Informatik.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.A. Robinson, “A Machine Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle,” JACM, 12 (1965), pp. 23–41.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. G. S. Tseitin, “On the Complexity of Derivations in Propositional Calculus,” Structures in Constructive Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, Part II, A. O. Sliosenko, ed., (1968), pp. 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kapur, D., Krishnamurthy, B. (1984). A Natural Proof System Based on Rewriting Techniques. In: Shostak, R.E. (eds) 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction. CADE 1984. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 170. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34768-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34768-4_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-96022-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-34768-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics