Abstract
In many fields of mathematics the richness of the underlying axiom set leads to the establishment of a number of very general equalities. For example, it is easy to prove that in groups (x -1)-1= x and that in rings -x•-y = x •y. In the presence of such an equality, each new inference made during a proof search by a theorem-proving program may immediately yield a set of very closely related inferences. If, for example, b •a = c is inferred in the presence of (x-1)-1= x, substitution immediately yields obviously related inferences such as (b-1)-1 • a = c. Retention of many members of each such set of inferences has seriously impeded the effectiveness of automatic theorem proving. Similar to the gain made by discarding instances of inferences already present is that made by discarding instances of repeated application of a given equality. The latter is achieved by use of demodulation. Its definition, evidence of its value, and a related rule of inference are given. In addition a number of concepts are defined the implementation of which reduces both the number and sensitivity to choice of parameters governing the theorem-proving procedures.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Davis, Martin. Computability and Unsolvability. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958, pp. 95–98.
Meltzer, B. Theorem-proving for computers: some results on resolution and renaming. Computer J. 8 (1966), 341–343.
Meltzer, B. and Poogi, P. An improved complete strategy for theorem-proving by resolution. (Unpublished.)
Robinson, J. A. A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. J. ACM 12, 1 (Jan. 1965), 23–41.
Robinson, J. A. Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution. Int. J. of Computer Math. 1 (1965), 227–234.
Robinson, J. A. A review of automatic theorem-proving. Proc. Symp. Appl. Math., Vol. 19. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1967.
Slagle, James. Automatic theorem proving with renamable and semantic resolution. J. ACM 14, 4 (Oct. 1967), 687–697 (this issue).
Wang, H. Formalization and automatic theorem-proving. Proc. IFIP Congr. 65, Vol.1, pp. 51–58 (Spartan Books, Washington, D. C.).
Wos, L., Carson, D., and Robinson, G. The unit preference strategy in theorem proving. Proc. AFIPS 1964 Fall Joint Comput. Conf., Vol. 26, Pt. II, pp. 615–621 ( Spartan Books, Washington, D. C. ).
Wos, L., Robinson, G. A., and Carson, D. F. Efficiency and completeness of the set of support strategy in theorem proving. J. ACM. 12, 4 (Oct. 1965), 536–541.
Wos, L., Robinson, G. A., and Carson, D. F. Automatic generation of proofs in the language of mathematics. Proc. IFIP Congr. 65, Vol. 2, pp. 325–326 (Spartan Books, Washington, D. C.).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1967 Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wos, L.T., Robinson, G.A., Carson, D.F., Shalla, L. (1967). The Concept of Demodulation in Theorem Proving. In: Siekmann, J.H., Wrightson, G. (eds) Automation of Reasoning. Symbolic Computation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81955-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-81955-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-81957-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-81955-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive