W. M. Farmer, J. D. Guttman, M. E. Nadel, and F. J. Thayer. Proof script pragmatics in imps. In A. Bundy, editor, Automated Deduction| CADE-12, volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 356-370. Springer-Verlag, 1994.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....15 responsibility to care for sufficient generality of the involved theory. 3.1.5 Theorem Proving Since the IMPS system is considering theorem proving mainly as a matter of theory handling we treat theorem proving in the present theory section. There are two levels of theorem proving in IMPS [FGNT94] Reasoning at the formula level is strongly supported by an automatic expression simplification routine whereas the reasoning at the proof structure level is performed interactively. The user orchestrates the deduction. Every proof is carried out within some formal theory. The IMPS system ....

....e.g. sequential or repeated application of macetes. Furthermore there are transportable macetes. They are based on a so called translation matching which consists of a theory interpretation and a matching. The transportable macetes serve to apply a theorem outside its home theory. A proof script [FGNT94] is a kind of tactic, more precisely, it is a sequence of certain S expressions that apply a sequence of commands to a deduction graph. At any point in the proof the user can ask IMPS to create a proof script that is a transcript of the proof or partial proof. 3.2 PVS Theories In PVS the user ....

W. M. Farmer, J. D. Guttman, M. E. Nadel, and F. J. Thayer. Proof Script Pragmatics in imps. In A. Bundy, editor, Automated Deduction--- CADE-12, volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 356--370. Springer-Verlag, 1994.

....some indirect proofs to direct ones, or extract embedded subproofs as lemmas to be proved in advance. An example of an Otter proof and its ILF version is given in Appendices E.1,E.2. Note that the Otter input requires the flag buildproofobject to be set see Section 3.7) 3. 9 IMPS IMPS [22, 20, 21] is an interactive proof system for mathematics. Its main aim is to record proofs in a way that shows why they are true and not just that they are true. The IMPS user interface is Emacs and the style of proof is goal directed. At the user level there is a graphical display of the current state of ....

....can be recorded. In addition, the proof history can be viewed in a T E X document. At the application level the proof is represented by a proof script. However proof scripts are not created by the user directly, but by interaction via menus and such operations as cut and paste. One comment in [22] is: An intimate knowledge of the syntax of proof scripts is unimportant, no one types scripts. My italics] The interface allows the user to build the script, which is then processed to construct the proof. The processing and interaction is based on a two level model: low level steps such as ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

William M. Farmer, Joshua D. Guttman, Mark E. Nadel, and F. Javier Thayer. Proof script pragmatics in IMPS. In Bundy [10], pages 356--370.

....serve essentially to drive the generation of proofs. We want to point out, however, that tactics are not intended and indeed cannot serve as high level structures for expressing proofs, rather they serve as a command language for batch like proof generation. Indeed, apart from recent work such as [FGNT94, FH94, SBR94, Web94] current theorem proving systems do not aim at the presentation of high level expressions of proofs. Structure The global organization and structure of a formal development can also effect decisively comprehensibility. First, a formal development is rarely self contained, ....

W. M. Farmer, J. D. Guttman, M. E. Nadel, and F. J. Thayer. Proof script pragmatics in IMPS. In Bundy [Bun94], pages 356--370.

No context found.

W. M. Farmer, J. D. Guttman, M. E. Nadel, and F. J. Thayer. Proof script pragmatics in imps. In A. Bundy, editor, Automated Deduction| CADE-12, volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 356-370. Springer-Verlag, 1994.

No context found.

Farmer, W. M., Guttman, J. D., Nadel, M. E., and Thayer, F. J., "Proof script pragmatics in IMPS," In: A. Bundy, ed., Automated Deduction--CADE-12, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 814, pages 356-370, 1994.

....applications for building a derivation graph. It serves as a compact prescriptive representation of the derivation graph. Scripts are convenient for storing derivation graphs, building new tactics, and reusing parts of a derivation graph construction. Proof scripts and their use are discussed in [26]. At this level, a derivation graph includes a derivation graph script that records the history of how it was constructed via tactics. 4. Tracking. A derivation graph can easily become a mess of incomplete deductions and computations. At this level, the partial deductions and computations within ....

.... rule systems, propositional simpli cation using binary decision diagrams (BDDs) linear arithmetic [6] and generic algebraic simpli cation in imps [28, 30] and (2) mechanisms for applying theorems and rules of inference (LCF style tactics [34] imps macetes [28, 30] and imps proof scripts [26]) Second, deductive capabilities are added to a computer algebra system. Examples include (1) the incorporation of logic into the computer algebra system Axiom [48] and (2) Analytica [12] a computer theorem proving system for mathematical analysis implemented in Mathematica. Third, a computer ....

Farmer, W. M., J. D. Guttman, M. E. Nadel, and F. J. Thayer: 1994, `Proof Script Pragmatics in imps'. In: A. Bundy (ed.): Automated Deduction|CADE12, Vol. 814 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. pp. 356-370.

....cation procedures: Rewrite rule systems, propositional simpli cation using binary decision diagrams (BBDs) linear arithmetic [6] and generic algebraic simpli cation in imps. 2) Mechanisms for applying theorems and rules of inference: LCF style tactics [30] imps macetes, and imps proof scripts [23]. 32 Second, deductive capabilities are added to a computer algebra system. Examples include: 1) The incorporation of logic into the computer algebra system Axiom [45] 2) Analytica [11] a computer theorem proving system for mathematical analysis implemented in Mathematica. Third, a ....

W. M. Farmer, J. D. Guttman, M. E. Nadel, and F. J. Thayer. Proof script pragmatics in imps. In A. Bundy, editor, Automated Deduction| CADE-12, volume 814 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 356-370. Springer-Verlag, 1994.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC