Davis, M., 1981. Obvious logical inferences, Seventh IJCAI, 530-531.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....steps or separate lemmas, theorems, or schemes of theorems. The Mizar veri er checks whether each inference step is in its opinion obvious unlike other systems which rely on a xed set of inference or rewriting rules. The notion of an obvious inference has been addressed in the past by M. Davis [22], P. Rudnicki [43] the Kiev project [23] and more recently by H. Friedman [24] In the earlier stages of the Mizar project, there were plans to test the Mizar system by building libraries based on various axiomatics: ZFC for normal mathematics, Peano axioms for theoretical arithmetic, etc. ....

M. Davis. Obvious logical inferences. In Proceedings of the 7th IJCAI, pages 530-531, 1981.

....the formal substitute equ or replace equ operations may be somewhat clumsy, but is entirely safe. Consequently, interactive sessions characteristically have a large number of purely clerical substitution steps. NAP, drawing heavily on unification, supports forms of Obvious Logical Inferences (see [23]) for reducing the number of substitution steps required in a derivation. This is obtained by specifying for a given operation, not only its source formulas and parameters, but its target formula too. Unification of the target formula with the expected result formula for a given rule defines ....

Davis, M., Obvious logical inferences, pp. 530--531 in: Proceedings of IJCAI 81, 1981.

....deadlines can sometimes be postponed to gain more time, and effective memory capability can be increased by reorganization or culling of memory, or by augmentation with external memory aids. Such fluidity in the resources available makes inapplicable logics of limited belief such as Konolige s or Davis (1981) logic of obvious inferences, since these logics reflect fixed limits to reasoning. There is no general and natural yet static logic of limited belief. The second, and more telling difficulty is that the agent may have the license and resources to draw a conclusion, but no interest in (or even a ....

Davis, M., 1981. Obvious logical inferences, Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 530-531.

....to refute P (2) P (x 1) while others would fail when the latter subproblem is encountered first. However, backtracking through alternative orders of splitting is combinatorially expensive, so we do not do it and accept this additional source of incompleteness. The amplify operation: Davis [ 11 ] defines obvious inferences as those that only require substitution for single instances of the formulas (i.e. no quantifier duplication is needed) The combination of split and instantiate is complete for obvious first order inferences. It will also make some obvious T inferences, though not ....

Davis, M. Obvious logical inferences. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (August 1981), pp. 530--531.

No context found.

Davis, M., 1981. Obvious logical inferences, Seventh IJCAI, 530-531.

No context found.

Davis, M., Obvious Logical Inferences, in Proc. of the 7th Internatinal Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,Vancouver, B.C., 1981, pp. 530--531.

No context found.

M. Davis. Obvious logical inferences. In Proceedings of the 7th IJCAI, pages 530-531, 1981.

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