Skip to main content

Constructive matching — A methodology for inductive theorem proving

  • Selected Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Logics in AI (JELIA 1990)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 478))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 128 Accesses

Abstract

Constructive Matching (CM) is a methodology for proving by induction theorems which express formally specifications of programs, i.e., theorems of the form ∀ x ∃z Q(x,z). The principal feature of our methodology is its deterministic character.

We have applied this methodology to two basic problems in inductive theorem proving: (1) strategy for proving an atomic formula, and (2) strategy for solving a special kind of equations. In this paper we present our methodology and illustrate its explanatory character. In particular, we try to show that our method provides explanations, as much as possible, in terms of the original problem, which makes them understandable for the user and suitable for the system.

The paper uses the vocabulary presented in [10].

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. Aubin: Mechanizing Structural Induction. Part 2: Strategies; Theoretical Computer Science 9, North-Holland, 1979, 347–362.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. Bibel, K. M. Hoernig: LOPS — A System Based on a Strategical Approach to Program Synthesis; in [3], 69–91.

    Google Scholar 

  3. A. Biermann, G. Guiho, Y. Kodratoff (ed): Automatic Program Construction Techniques; Macmillan Publishing Company, London, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. Biundo: Automated synthesis of recursive algorithms as a theorem proving tool; in [16], 553–558.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. S. Boyer, J S. Moore: A Computational Logic; Academic Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Bundy, (ed): Proceedings of the Eigth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence; August, Karlsruhe, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, J. Hessketh, A. Smail, A. Stevens: A Rational Reconstruction and Extension of Recursion Analysis; in [23], 359–365.

    Google Scholar 

  8. N. Dershowitz: Synthesis by Completion; in [13] 208–214.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Franova: Fundamentals for a new methodology for inductive theorem proving: CM-construction of atomic formulae; in [16], 137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Franova: Fundamentals of a new methodology for Program Synthesis from Formal Specifications: CM-construction of atomic formulae; Thesis, Université Paris-Sud, November, Orsay, France, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Franova: Explanations in Inductive Theorem Proving; to appear in proceedings of AAAI-90, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. H. Gallier, W. Snyder: A General complete E-unification procedure; in [17], 216–228.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. K. Joshi, (ed): Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence; August, Los Angeles, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Y. Kodratoff, M.Picard: Complétion de systèmes de réécriture et synthèse de programmes à partir de leurs spécifications; Bigre No.35, October, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Y. Kodratoff, J. Castaing: Trivializing the proof of trivial theorems; in In 930.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Y. Kodratoff: Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence; August 1–5, Pitman, London, United Kingdom, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  17. P. Lescane, (ed): Rewriting Techniques and Applications; Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 256, May, Springer-Verlag, Bordeaux, France, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Z. Manna, R. Waldinger: A Deductive Approach to Program Synthesis; ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 2., No.1, January, 1980, 90–121.

    Google Scholar 

  19. W. Nutt, P. Réty, G. Smolka: Basic Narowing Revisited; J. Symbolic Computation No. 7, 1989, 295–317.

    Google Scholar 

  20. H. Perdrix: Program synthesis from specifications; ESPRIT'85, Status Report of Continuing Work, North-Holland, 1986, 371–385.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. Réty: Improving basic narrowing techniques; in [17], 228–242.

    Google Scholar 

  22. D. R. Smith: Top-Down Synthesis of Simple Divide and Conquer Algorithm; Artificial Intelligence, vol. 27, no. 1, 1985, 43–96.

    Google Scholar 

  23. N. S. Sridharan: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence; August 20–25 1989, Morgan Kaufmann, California, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  24. C. L. Chang, R.Ch.T. Lee: Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving; Academic Press, New York, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  25. M. Franova: PRECOMAS — An Implementation of Constructive Matching Methodology; to appear in proceedings of ISSAC-90, Tokyo, Japon, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

J. van Eijck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fraňová, M. (1991). Constructive matching — A methodology for inductive theorem proving. In: van Eijck, J. (eds) Logics in AI. JELIA 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 478. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0018443

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0018443

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-53686-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46982-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics