Advertisement

Rank/activity: A canonical form for binary resolution

  • J. D. Horton
  • Bruce Spencer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1421)

Abstract

The rank/activity restriction on binary resolution is introduced. It accepts only a single derivation tree from a large equivalence class of such trees. The equivalence classes capture all trees that are the same size and differ only by reordering the resolution steps. A proof procedure that combines this restriction with the authors' minimal restriction of binary resolution computes each minimal binary resolution tree exactly once.

Keywords

Binary Tree Internal Node Rank Function Binary Resolution Proof Procedure 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. M. Adelson-Velskii and E. M. Landis. An algorithm for the organizaton of information. Soviet Math. Doklady, 3:1259–1263, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chin-Liang Chang and Richard Char-Tung Lee. Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press, New York and London, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hans de Nivelle. Resolution games and non-liftable resolution orderings. Collegium Logicum, Annals of the Kurt Gödel Society, 2:1–20, 1996.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. D. Horton and Bruce Spencer. Bottom up procedures to construct each minimal clause tree once. Technical Report TR97-115, Faculty of Computer Science, University of New Brunwsick, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. D. Horton and Bruce Spencer. Clause trees: a tool for understanding and implementing resolution in automated reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 92:25–89, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. A. Robinson. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM, 12:23–41, 1965.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruce Spencer and J.D. Horton. Extending the regular restriction of resolution to non-linear subdeductions. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 478–483. AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruce Spencer and J.D. Horton. Efficient procedures to detect and restore minimality, an extension of the regular restriction of resolution. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1998. accepted for publication.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. S. Tseitin. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In Studies in Constructive Mathematics, Seminars in Mathematics: Mathematicheskii Institute, pages 115–125. Consultants Bureau, 1969.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Wos. Automated Reasoning: 33 Basic Research Problems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. Horton
    • 1
  • Bruce Spencer
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceUniversity of New BrunswickFrederictonCanada

Personalised recommendations