ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Automatic Theorem Proving With Renamable and Semantic Resolution
Full text PdfPdf (889 KB)
Source Journal of the ACM (JACM) archive
Volume 14 ,  Issue 4  (October 1967) table of contents
Pages: 687 - 697  
Year of Publication: 1967
ISSN:0004-5411
Author
James R. Slagle  Lawrence Radiation Laboratory University of California, Livermore, California
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 37,   Citation Count: 34
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/321420.321428
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The theory of J. A. Robinson's resolution principle, an inference rule for first-order predicate calculus, is unified and extended. A theorem-proving computer program based on the new theory is proposed and the proposed semantic resolution program is compared with hyper-resolution and set-of-support resolution programs. Renamable and semantic resolution are defined and shown to be identical. Given a model M, semantic resolution is the resolution of a latent clash in which each “electron” is at least sometimes false under M; the nucleus is at least sometimes true under M. The completeness theorem for semantic resolution and all previous completeness theorems for resolution (including ordinary, hyper-, and set-of-support resolution) can be derived from a slightly more general form of the following theorem. If U is a finite, truth-functionally unsatisfiable set of nonempty clauses and if M is a ground model, then there exists an unresolved maximal semantic clash [E1, E2, · · ·, Eq, C] with nucleus C such that any set containing C and one or more of the electrons E1, E2, · · ·, Eq is an unresolved semantic clash in U.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
----, Eliminating the irrelevant from mechanical proofs. Proc. 15th Symp. in Appl. Math., Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1963, pp. 15-30.
 
3
 
4
 
5
----, HANSEN, J. R., AND LOVELAND, D. W. Empirical explorations of the geometry theorem machine, Proc. 1960 Western Joint Comput. Conf., Vol. 17, pp. 143-147. (Reprinted in {3}, pp. 153-163.)
 
6
GILMORZ, P. C. A program for the production of proofs for theorems derivable within the first order predicate calculus from axiome. Proc. Int. Conf. on Information Processing, UNESCO House, paris, 1959.
 
7
MCCARTHY, J. Programs with common sense. Proc. Conf. on Mechanization of Thought Processes. English National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, Middlesex, England, 1959.
 
8
MELTZER, B. Theorem proving for computers:some results on resolution and renaming Computer J. 8 (1966), 341-343.
 
9
 
10
REYNOLDS, J. Unpublished seminar notes. Stanford University, Palo Alto. Calif. fall 1965.
11
 
12
----, Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution Int. J. Computer Math. 1 (1965), 227- 234.
 
13
----, A review of automatic theorem proving. Proc. Symp. in Appl. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1967.
 
14
SLAGLE, J. R. A multipurpose, theorem proving, heuristic program that learns. Information Processing 1965, Proc. IFIP Congress 1965, Vol. 2, pp. 323-324.
 
15
----, A proposed preference strategy using sufficiency resolution for answering questions. UCRL-14361, Lawrence Radiation Lab., Livermore, Calif., Aug., 1965.
16
 
17
WANG, H. Formalization and automatic theorem proving. Information Processing 1965, Proc. IFIP Congress 1965, Vol. 1, pp. 51-58.
 
18
WOS, L., CARSON, D. F., AND ROBINSON, G. A. The unit preference strategy in theorem proving Proc. AFIPS 1964 Fall Joint Comput. Conf., Vol. 26, pp. 616-621.
19

CITED BY  34