Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solving Open Questions and Other Challenge Problems Using Proof Sketches

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we describe a set of procedures and strategies for searching for proofs in logical systems based on the inference rule condensed detachment. The procedures and strategies rely on the derivation of proof sketches – sequences of formulas that are used as hints to guide the search for sound proofs. In the simplest case, a proof sketch consists of a subproof – key lemmas to prove, for example – and the proof is completed by filling in the missing steps. In the more general case, a proof sketch consists of a sequence of formulas sufficient to find a proof, but it may include formulas that are not provable in the current theory. We find that even in this more general case, proof sketches can provide valuable guidance in finding sound proofs. Proof sketches have been used successfully for numerous problems coming from a variety of problem areas. We have, for example, used proof sketches to find several new two-axiom systems for Boolean algebra using the Sheffer stroke.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barker-Plummer, D.: Gazing: An approach to the problem of definition and lemma use, J. Automated Reasoning 8(3) (1992), 311-344.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bledsoe, W.: The use of analogy in proof discovery, MCC Tech. Report AI-2158-86, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, Austin, Texas, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brock, B., Cooper, S., and Pierce, W.: Analogical reasoning and proof discovery, in E. Lusk and R. Overbeek (eds.), Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 310, Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 454-468.

  4. Giunchiglia, F. and Walsh T.: A theory of abstraction, Artificial Intelligence 57(2, 3) (1992), 323-389.

    Google Scholar 

  5. McCharen, J., Overbeek, R., and Wos, L.: Complexity and related enhancements for automated theorem-proving programs, Comput. Math. Appl. 2 (1976), 1-16.

    Google Scholar 

  6. McCune, W.: OTTER 3.0 reference manual and guide, Technical Report ANL-94/6, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Meredith, C.: Equational postulates for the Sheffer stroke, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 10 (1969), 266-270.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Plaisted, D.: Abstraction mappings in mechanical theorem proving, in W. Bibel and R. Kowalski (eds.), Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 87, Springer-Verlag, 1980, pp. 264-280.

  9. Robinson, J.: Automatic deduction with hyper-resolution, International J. Comput. Math. 1 (1965), 227-234.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sacerdoti, E.: Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces, Artificial Intelligence 5 (1974), 115-135.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sheffer, H.: A set of five independent postulates for Boolean algebras, with application to logical constants, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1913), 481-488.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Veroff, R.: Canonicalization and demodulation, Technical Report ANL-81/6, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Veroff, R. and Wos, L.: The linked inference principle, I: The formal treatment, J. Automated Reasoning 8(2) (1992), 213-274.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Veroff, R.: Using hints to increase the effectiveness of an automated reasoning program: Case studies, J. Automated Reasoning 16(3) (1996), 223-239.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Veroff, R.: Axiom systems for Boolean algebra using the Sheffer stroke, Technical Report TRCS-20, Computer Science Department, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Veroff, R.: Short 2-bases for Boolean algebra in terms of the Sheffer stroke, Technical Report TR-CS-25, Computer Science Department, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Veroff, R.: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~veroff/BA/, 2000.

  18. Wolfram, S.: Correspondence by electronic mail, February 4, 2000.

  19. Wolfram, S.: A new kind of science, http://wolframscience.com, 2000.

  20. Wos, L., Veroff, R., Smith, B., and McCune, W.: in R. Shostak (ed.), The Linked Inference Principle, II: The User's Viewpoint, Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 170, Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp. 316-332.

  21. Wos, L.: Automated reasoning and Bledsoe's dream for the field, in R. Boyer (ed.), Automated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1991, pp. 297-345.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, U.S.A

    Robert Veroff

Authors
  1. Robert Veroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Veroff, R. Solving Open Questions and Other Challenge Problems Using Proof Sketches. Journal of Automated Reasoning 27, 157–174 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010639725972

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010639725972

Search

Navigation