Abstract
In this paper, we present a basic set of methods to guide a proof in the Whelk logic program synthesis system. Starting from the methods used in the Oyster/CLAM system, designed for a functional context, we developed some proof “critics” to solve the cases in which those methods are blocked in a relational context. The application of those methods and proof critics is illustrated by an example, the delete predicate synthesis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
T. Åhs. Relational rippling (working title), 1993. Ph.L. Thesis, Computing Science Department, Uppsala University, Sweden.
R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, 1979. ACM monograph series.
A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In R. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 111–120. Springer-Verlag, 1988. Longer version available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 349.
A. Bundy, A. Smaill, and G. A. Wiggins. The synthesis of logic programs from inductive proofs. In J. Lloyd, editor, Computational Logic, pages 135–149 Springer-Verlag, 1990. Esprit Basic Research Series. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 501.
A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, C. Horn, and A. Smaill. The Oyster-Clam system. In M.E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction,pages 647–648. Springer-Verlag, 1990. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence No. 449. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 507.
A. Bundy, A. Stevens, F. van Harmelen, A. Ireland, and A. Smaill. Rippling: A heuristic for guiding inductive proofs. Artificial Intelligence,62:185–253, 1993. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 567.
R.L. Constable, S.F. Allen, H.M. Bromley, et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice Hall, 1986.
A. Ireland. The Use of Planning Critics in Mechanizing Inductive Proofs. In A. Voronkov, editor, International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning - LPAR 92, St. Petersburg, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence No. 624, pages 178–189. Springer-Verlag, 1992. Also available from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper 592.
G. A. Wiggins. Synthesis and transformation of logic programs in the Whelk proof development system. In K. R. Apt, editor Proceedings of JICSLP-92pages 351–368. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
G. A. Wiggins, A. Bundy, I. Kraan, and J. Hesketh. Synthesis and transformation of logic programs through constructive, inductive proof. In K-K. Lau and T. Clement, editors, Proceedings of LoPSTr-91, pages 27–45. Springer Verlag, 1991. Workshops in Computing Series.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 British Computer Society
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lombart, V., Wiggins, G., Deville, Y. (1994). Guiding Synthesis Proofs. In: Deville, Y. (eds) Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation. Workshops in Computing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3234-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3234-9_7
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-19864-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-3234-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive