Deciding the Word Problem in the Union of Equational Theories Sharing Constructors

  • Franz Baader
  • Cesare Tinelli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1631)


The main contribution of this paper is a new method for combining decision procedures for the word problem in equational the- ories sharing “constructors.” The notion of constructors adopted in this paper has a nice algebraic definition and is more general than a related notion introduced in previous work on the combination problem.


Normal Form Word Problem Decision Procedure Equational Theory Free Algebra 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    F. Baader and K.U. Schulz. Unification in the union of disjoint equational theories: Combining decision procedures. J. Symbolic Computation 21, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Baader and C. Tinelli. A new approach for combining decision procedures for the word problem, and its connection to the Nelson-Oppen combination method. In Proc. CADE-14, Springer LNAI 1249, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Baader and C. Tinelli. Deciding the word problem in the union of equational theories. UIUCDCS-Report 98-2073, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998. Available at
  4. 4.
    A. Boudet. Combining unification algorithms. J. Symbolic Computation 16, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Dershowitz and Z. Manna. Proving termination with multiset orderings. Communications of the ACM 22, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Domenjoud, F. Klay, and C. Ringeissen. Combination techniques for non-disjoint equational theories. In Proc. CADE-12, Springer LNAI 814, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Kirchner and Ch. Ringeissen. Combining symbolic constraint solvers on algebraic domains. J. Symbolic Computation 18, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Nipkow. Combining matching algorithms: The regular case. In Proc. RTA’89, Springer LNCS 335, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Ohlebusch. Modular properties of composable term rewriting systems. J. Symbolic Computation 20, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Pigozzi. The join of equational theories. Colloquium Mathematicum 30, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ch. Ringeissen. Unification in a combination of equational theories with shared constants and its application to primal algebras. In Proc. LPAR’92, Springer LNAI 624, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ch. Ringeissen. Combination of matching algorithms. In Proc. STACS-11, Springer LNCS 775, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Schmidt-Schauff. Combination of unification algorithms. J. Symbolic Computation 8, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Tidén. First-Order Unification in Combinations of Equational Theories. Phd thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1986.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Tinelli and Ch. Ringeissen. Non-disjoint unions of theories and combinations of satisàbility procedures: First results. Technical Report UIUCDCS-R-98-2044, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, April 1998. (Also available as INRIA research report no. RR-3402.)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franz Baader
    • 1
  • Cesare Tinelli
    • 2
  1. 1.LuFg Theoretical Computer ScienceRWTH AachenAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations