Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating Computer Algebra into Proof Planning

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mechanized reasoning systems and computer algebra systems have different objectives. Their integration is highly desirable, since formal proofs often involve both of the two different tasks proving and calculating. Even more important, proof and computation are often interwoven and not easily separable.

In this article we advocate an integration of computer algebra into mechanized reasoning systems at the proof plan level. This approach allows us to view the computer algebra algorithms as methods, that is, declarative representations of the problem-solving knowledge specific to a certain mathematical domain. Automation can be achieved in many cases by searching for a hierarchic proof plan at the method level by using suitable domain-specific control knowledge about the mathematical algorithms. In other words, the uniform framework of proof planning allows us to solve a large class of problems that are not automatically solvable by separate systems.

Our approach also gives an answer to the correctness problems inherent in such an integration. We advocate an approach where the computer algebra system produces high-level protocol information that can be processed by an interface to derive proof plans. Such a proof plan in turn can be expanded to proofs at different levels of abstraction, so the approach is well suited for producing a high-level verbalized explication as well as for a low-level, machine-checkable, calculus-level proof.

We present an implementation of our ideas and exemplify them using an automatically solved example.

Changes in the criterion of ‘rigor of the proof' engender major revolutions in mathematics. H. Poincaré, 1905

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbot, J., van Leeuwen, A., and Strotmann, A.: Objectives of OpenMath, Technical Report 12, RIACA, Eindhoven, June 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrews, P. B.: Transforming matings into natural deduction proofs, in W. Bibel and R. Kowalski (eds), Proceedings of the 5th CADE, Les Arc, France, 1980, LNCS 87, Springer-Verlag, 1980, pp. 281–292.

  3. Ballarin, C., Homann, K., and Calmet, J.: Theorems and algorithms: An interface between Isabelle and Maple, in A. H. M. Levelt (ed.), Proceedings of International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation (ISSAC'95), ACM Press, 1995, pp. 150–157.

  4. Barendregt, H.: Computations and formal proofs in type theory, talk at the 2nd Meeting of the CALCULEMUS Project, Schloβ Dagstuhl, Germany, 18.11.–20.11.1996. See also The quest for correctness, available as URL: ftp://ftp.cs.kun.nl/pub/CompMath.Found/quest.ps.Z, 1996.

  5. Benzmüller, C., Cheikhrouhou, L., Fehrer, D., Fiedler, A., Huang, X., Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M., Melis, E., Meier, A., Schaarschmidt, W., Siekmann, J., and Sorge, V.: ΩMEGA: Towards a mathematical assistant, in W. McCune (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th CADE, Townsville Australia, 1997, LNAI 1249, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 252–255.

  6. Boyer, R. S. and Moore, J S.: Metafunctions, in R. S. Boyer and J S. Moore (eds), The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, Academic Press, 1981, pp. 103–184.

  7. Buchberger, B.: Mathematische Software-Systeme: Drastische Erweiterung des “Intelligenzniveaus” entsprechender Programme erwartet, Informatik Spektrum 19/2 (1996), 100–101.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buchberger, B.: Symbolic computation (an editorial), J. Symbolic Comput. 1 (1985), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Buchberger, B.: Using Mathematica for doing simple mathematical proofs, invited talk at the 4th Tokyo Mathematica Users' Conference, November 2–3, 1996.

  10. Bundy, A.: The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs, in E. L. Lusk and R. A. Overbeek (eds), Proceedings of the 9th CADE, Argonne, Illinois, USA, 1988, LNCS 310, Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 111–120.

  11. Bundy, A., Stevens, A., van Harmelen, F., Ireland, A., and Smaill, A.: Rippling: A heuristic for guiding inductive proofs, Artif. Intell. 62 (1993), 185–253.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Char, B. W., Geddes, K. O., Gonnet, G. H., Leong, B. L., Monagan, M. B., and Watt, S. M.: First Leaves: A Tutorial Introduction to Maple V, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  13. Chou, S.-C.: Mechanical Geometry Theorem Proving, Mathematics and Its Applications, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chou, S.-C., Gao, X.-S., and Zhang, J.-Z.: Machine Proofs in Geometry: Automated Production of Readable Proofs for Geometry Theorems, World Scientific, Singapore, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Clarke, E. and Zhao, X.: Analytica – A theorem prover in Mathematica, in Automated Deduction, 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Saratoga Springs, New York, 15–18 June 1992, pp. 761–763.

  16. Clément, D., Montagnac, F., and Prunet, V.: Integrated software components: A paradigm for control integration, in Proceedings of the European Symposium on Software Development Environments and CASE Technology, LNCS 509, Springer-Verlag, 1991.

  17. Constable, R. L. et al.: Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System, Prentice-Hall, 1986.

  18. Fuchssteiner, B. et al. (The MuPAD Group): MuPAD User's Manual, Wiley, 1996.

  19. Giunchiglia, F., Pecchiari, P., and Talcott, C.: Reasoning theories – towards an architecture for open mechanized reasoning systems, in F. Baader and K. U. Schulz (eds), Frontiers of Combining Systems (FroCoS-1): 1st International Workshop, Munich, Germany, 1996, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1996, pp. 157–174

  20. Harrison, J. and Théry, L.: Extending the HOL theorem prover with a computer algebra system to reason about the reals, in C.-J. H. Seger and J. J. Joyce (eds), Higher Order Logic Theorem Proving and its Applications (HUG'93), LNCS 780, Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp. 174–184.

  21. Harrison, J. and Théry, L.: Reasoning about the reals: The marriage of HOL and Maple, in A. Voronkov (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR'93), St. Petersburg, Russia, LNAI 698, Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp. 351–353.

  22. Hearn, A. C.: Reduce user's manual: Version 3.6, Technical Report, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Homann, K. and Calmet, J.: An open environment for doing mathematics, in M. Wester, S. Steinberg, and M. Jahn (eds), Proceedings of 1st International IMACS Conference on Applications of Computer Algebra, Albuquerque, USA, 1995.

  24. Howe, D. J.: Computational metatheory in Nuprl, in E. Lusk and R. Overbeek (eds), Proceedings of the 9th CADE, Argonne, Illinois, USA, 1988, LNCS 310, Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 238–257.

  25. Huang, X., Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M., Melis, E., Nesmith, D., Richts, J., and Siekmann, J.: Ω-MKRP: A proof development environment, in A. Bundy (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th CADE, Nancy, 1994, LNAI 814, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 788–792.

  26. Huang, X., Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M., and Richts, J.: Adapting methods to novel tasks in proof planning, in B. Nebel and L. Dreschler-Fischer (eds), KI-94: Advances in Artificial Intelligence – Proceedings of KI-94, 18th German Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Saarbrücken, Germany, LNAI 861, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 379–380.

  27. Huang, X. and Fiedler, A.: Presenting machine-found proofs, in M. A. McRobbie and J. K. Slaney (eds), Proceedings of the 13th CADE, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1996, LNAI 1104, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 221–225.

  28. Jenks, R. D. and Sutor, R. S., AXIOM: The Scientific Computation System, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

  29. Kapur, D.: A refutational approach to theorem proving in geometry, Artif. Intell. 37 (1988), 61–93.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Karatsuba, A. and Ofman, Y.: Multiplication of multidigit numbers by automata, Soviet Phys. Dokl. 7 (1963), 595–596.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kowalski, R.: Algorithm = Logic + Control, Comm. Assoc. Comput. Machinery 22 (1979), 424–436.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McCune, W. W.: Otter 3.0 reference manual and guide, Technical Report ANL-94-6, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Universität des Saarlandes, Diplomthemen SS-89 Nr. 35, Fachschaft Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Saarbrücken, Germany, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wolfram, S.: The Mathematica Book: Version 3.0, 3rd edition, Wolfram Media, Inc., Champaign, IL, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wu, W.: Mechanical Theorem Proving in Geometries: Basic Principles, Texts and Monographs in Symbolic Computation, Springer, Wien, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zippel, R.: Effective Polynomial Computation, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1993.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England

    Manfred Kerber

  2. Fachbereich Informatik, Universität des Saarlandes, D-66141, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Michael Kohlhase & Volker Sorge

Authors
  1. Manfred Kerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Kohlhase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Volker Sorge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M. & Sorge, V. Integrating Computer Algebra into Proof Planning. Journal of Automated Reasoning 21, 327–355 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006059810729

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006059810729

Search

Navigation