Machine-checked, machine-generated or machine-verified proofs

learn more… | top users | synonyms

9
votes
1answer
90 views

How did 'Isabelle' (the theorem prover) get its name?

The title says it all, but I'm curious because it isn't obvious how a theorem prover came to be named 'Isabelle'. Was it named for a person? I couldn't find out by some Google searches.
3
votes
1answer
50 views

Why do presenttations of proof systems in logic and automated reasoning not include the algorithm that finds proofs?

Is is that a common way to present a proof system in the field of Logic and Automated Reasoning is to present a system of inference rules, without having to formally describe a particular algorithm or ...
2
votes
1answer
18 views

Derivation of implicational propositional axioms

Is there a way to subtract and add properties of axioms to generate new axioms? For example: {L} = {P S K} // natural deduction {P S K} = {P H K I} // natural deduction {S K} = {?} // constructive ...
3
votes
1answer
120 views

How can I check constraints on my state machine behaviour?

My background is fairly practical rather than theoretical, so this question may be a bit basic. I have a state machine with events, and events may optionally trigger action functions to be called as ...
4
votes
1answer
57 views

What happens to uninterpreted predicates in Ackermann's reduction?

I know the procedure to apply the Ackermann's reduction to a formula that doesn't involve uninterpreted predicates. But, how do we treat the uninterpreted boolean predicates? Nearly all the examples I ...
2
votes
0answers
42 views

What is the difference between superposition and paramodulation?

I am currently writing a paper about automated theorem proving in first-order logic. Equality is not uncommon for mathematical problems and almost every theorem prover like VAMPIRE or SPASS has a ...
2
votes
0answers
67 views

Proof Carrying LLVM?

I am intrigued by and understand the very basics of Proof Carrying Code (PCC) and I recognize that LLVM is a machine-independent intermediate language. LLVM is the intermediate form of many ...
1
vote
0answers
42 views

sets of axioms for LADR automated theorem provers

I am pretty new to ATP, but I'm really enjoying playing around with prover9. I have found a nice set of axioms for basic information-theoretic proofs here, I was wondering if there are some ...
0
votes
0answers
26 views

About atomically closed tableaux

The goal is to construct an atomically closed tableau from a closed tableau. Suppose we have a closed tableau with at least one branch θ that contains X and ¬X, where X is non-atomic formula. My ...
5
votes
1answer
388 views

Why is automated theorem proving impossible?

As far I know, in general case there is no Turing machine which could get any theorem on its input and produce its proof on its output. Why is it so?
2
votes
1answer
60 views

Automated theorem proving with SAT

If you had a polynomial time algorithm for determining boolean satisfiability how would you prove/disprove a conjecture like the Reimann-Zeta hypothesis (or the Pythagorean theorem for that matter) ...
4
votes
1answer
423 views

Euclidean Algorithm in Coq

Question How do I write more intuitive proofs of the two following results in Coq? ...
8
votes
2answers
430 views

Theorem Proofs in Coq

Background I am learning assistance, Coq, on my own. So far, I have completed reading Yves Bertot's Coq in a Hurry. Now, my goal is to prove some basic results concerning the natural numbers, ...
2
votes
1answer
170 views

What is the difference between “definition” and “inductive” in Coq?

In Coq, you can use two different kinds of keywords to do definitions--Inductive and Definition. I do not understand the difference between an inductive and a definition, or when it is appropriate to ...
3
votes
2answers
791 views

Equivalence of NFA and DFA - proof by construction

I was looking at the construction proof showing the equivalence of NFA and DFA from Sipser's text. It started by taking number of states of DFA as $\mathcal{P}(Q)$, where $\mathcal{P}(Q)$ is the set ...
7
votes
1answer
177 views

Redundancy elimination in the superposition calculus

When proving theorems with the superposition calculus, we deal with three kinds of rules: Generating rules: from pair of clauses A and B, generate new clause C while keeping the original pair, e.g. ...
10
votes
1answer
256 views

Distinct variables for different clauses

In resolution theorem proving, it is normally assumed variables in different clauses are distinct. This is not something that happens automatically; it requires significant extra code and computation ...
4
votes
1answer
367 views

Automated geometric theorem-proving using synthetic methods

This question is about geometric theorem proving and is inspired by this Math.SE post. Currently, Euclidean-geometric theorem provers, as referred to in the post, use coordinate geometry to convert ...
11
votes
3answers
1k views

Why is unification so important to inference engines?

I am learning Automated Theorem Proving / SMT solvers / Proof Assistants by myself and post a series of questions about the process, starting here. I keep reading about the Unification Algorithm. ...
14
votes
2answers
255 views

Why do some inference engines need human assistance while others don't?

I am learning Automated Theorem Proving / SMT solvers / Proof Assistants by myself and post a series of questions about the process, starting here. Why is it that automated theorem provers, i.e. ...
15
votes
1answer
561 views

Types of Automated Theorem Provers

I am learning Automated Theorem Proving / SMT solvers / Proof Assistants by myself and post a series of questions about the process, starting here. Which are the relevant automated theorem provers? I ...
22
votes
5answers
4k views

Learning Automated Theorem Proving

I am learning Automated Theorem Proving / SMT solvers / Proof Assistants by myself and post a series of questions about the process, starting here. Note that these topics are not easily digested ...