A.C. Sehn. DECLAME -- eine deklarative Sprache zur Reprasentation von Methoden. Master's thesis, Universitat des Saarlandes, Saarbrucken, Germany, 1995. available from http://jswww.cs.unisb. de/pub.seki/SR-95/index.html. 4  Home/Search Document Not in Database Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Proof Planning with Methods - Schairer (1996) (Correct)
.... it might be a good idea to search for proofs via a proof plan rather than directly on calculus level (section 2) Also I am going to describe what a proof planning system needs to provide in order to instantiate these hopes (section 3) Then I am going to argue briefly that methods as described in [Bun88, MB96, HKRS94, Seh95] can be used to implement the relevant features. 2 Motivation Traditional Automated Theorem Proving (ATP) suffers from search in exponential search trees. In case one uses higher order object languages which seems to be appropriate for most interesting tasks there are further complications ....
A.C. Sehn. DECLAME -- eine deklarative Sprache zur Reprasentation von Methoden. Master's thesis, Universitat des Saarlandes, Saarbrucken, Germany, 1995. available from http://jswww.cs.unisb. de/pub.seki/SR-95/index.html. 4
The Heine-Borel Challenge Problem - Melis (1998) (Correct)
....in a meta language and serve to restrict the search during planning, e.g. restrict the instantiations of pre(M) post(M) or of the parameters. The program in the slot procedure executes the application of the proof schema and or applies tactics occurring in constraints or in the proof schema [Seh95] The proof schema is a declarative schematic representation of proofs in the object logic, that relies on the Natural Deduction (ND) calculus and on invoking automated theorem provers such as OTTER [McC90] The proof schema lines contain a label, a sequent, and a line justification. The ....
A.C. Sehn. DECLAME -- eine deklarative Sprache zur Reprasentation von Methoden. Master's thesis, Universitat des Saarlandes, 1995. published as SEKI Working Paper SWP-95-02.
Progress in Proof Planning: Planning Limit Theorems Automatically - Melis (1997) (1 citation) (Correct)
....and which are outputs (effects with add and delete lists in STRIPS notation) of the method. Therefore, a translation of methods to a STRIPS like representation of operators, used in OMEGA s planning, is derived from the annotated premises and conclusions of the method in the following way [34]: ffl not annotated premises become lines in the preconditions, ffl Psi annotated premises are translated to preconditions and to elements of the delete list of the operator, 5 Binding meta formulae (X A) evaluate to true. ffl Phi premises are introduced as lines into the add ....
....to Refutation, for example, has the precondition L3, the add list ( L1) and the delete list ( L3) Hence, its input is L3 and its output L1. That is, Refutation is a backward operator (reducing a goal L3 to a subgoal L1) The following planning algorithm (in pseudo code) has been presented in [34] and will be extended in the sequel of this paper. While there are lines in the planning state ffl Find all applicable instantiated operators: Select an operator M, find all matchings from M s preconditions with ( and ) elements of the current planning state. For each instantiation ....
A.C. Sehn. DECLAME -- eine deklarative Sprache zur Reprasentation von Methoden. Master's thesis, Universitat des Saarlandes, 1995. published as SEKI Working Paper SWP-95-02.
Proving Ground Completeness of Resolution by Proof Planning - Kerber, Sehn (1996) (2 citations) Self-citation (Sehn) (Correct)
....doing so we follow Bledsoe s formalisation of the problem [3] in particular we use the lemmata proposed there for working out the main theorem. This proof is the most advanced case study that has been done with the Omega MKRP proof development environment [14] up to now and is first described in [20]. In this work we show that our general framework can not only be applied to specify and automatically solve this problem, but that this proof can even be transferred to a similar problem, namely the ground completeness of lock resolution. The general idea of using the first proof as a guideline ....
....planning state is displayed in Figure 3. The lemmata LEM0 through LEM8 are exactly the lemmata given in Bledsoe s paper [3] In addition, we need in our formulation lemmata for dealing with sets, lemmata SUBS S1 S and SUBS S2 S are two subsumption properties of two special clause sets (see [20] for detailed proof plans for them) the other hypotheses are standard definitions and properties of set theory. In Bledsoe s approach these hypotheses are not necessary, since they are basic to the Str : ve Prover [12] for set theory. These properties are easy properties of the subset relation ....
A. C. Sehn. DECLAME -- eine deklarative Sprache zur Reprasentation von Methoden. Master's thesis, in German, Fachbereich Informatik, Universitat des Saarlandes, October 1995. Also published as SEKI Working Paper SWP-95-02.
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