TY - GEN
T1 - Incorporating tables into proofs
AU - Miller, Dale
AU - Nigam, Vivek
PY - 2007/1/1
Y1 - 2007/1/1
N2 - We consider the problem of automating and checking the use of previously proved lemmas in the proof of some main theorem. In particular, we call the collection of such previously proved results a table and use a partial order on the table's entries to denote the (provability) dependency relationship between tabled items. Tables can be used in automated deduction to store previously proved subgoals and in interactive theorem proving to store a sequence of lemmas introduced by a user to direct the proof system towards some final theorem. Tables of literals can be incorporated into sequent calculus proofs using two ideas. First, cuts are used to incorporate tabled items into a proof: one premise of the cut requires a proof of the lemma and the other branch of the cut inserts the lemma into the set of assumptions. Second, to ensure that lemma is not reproved, we exploit the fact that in focused proofs, atoms can have different polarity. Using these ideas, simple logic engines that do focused proof search (such as logic programming interpreters) are able to check proofs for correctness with guarantees that previous work is not redone. We also discuss how a table can be seen as a proof object and discuss some possible uses of tables-as-proofs.
AB - We consider the problem of automating and checking the use of previously proved lemmas in the proof of some main theorem. In particular, we call the collection of such previously proved results a table and use a partial order on the table's entries to denote the (provability) dependency relationship between tabled items. Tables can be used in automated deduction to store previously proved subgoals and in interactive theorem proving to store a sequence of lemmas introduced by a user to direct the proof system towards some final theorem. Tables of literals can be incorporated into sequent calculus proofs using two ideas. First, cuts are used to incorporate tabled items into a proof: one premise of the cut requires a proof of the lemma and the other branch of the cut inserts the lemma into the set of assumptions. Second, to ensure that lemma is not reproved, we exploit the fact that in focused proofs, atoms can have different polarity. Using these ideas, simple logic engines that do focused proof search (such as logic programming interpreters) are able to check proofs for correctness with guarantees that previous work is not redone. We also discuss how a table can be seen as a proof object and discuss some possible uses of tables-as-proofs.
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-540-74915-8_35
DO - 10.1007/978-3-540-74915-8_35
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:38049004335
SN - 9783540749141
T3 - Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
SP - 466
EP - 480
BT - Computer Science Logic - 21st International Workshop, CSL 2007 and 16th Annual Conference of the EACSL, Proceedings
PB - Springer Verlag
T2 - 21st International Workshop on Computer Science Logic, CSL 2007 and 16th Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Science Logic, EACSL
Y2 - 11 September 2007 through 15 September 2007
ER -