| Franz Baader and Jorg H. Siekmann. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, chapter `Unification Theory'. Oxford University Press, 1993. |
....sufficiently expressive to introduce the above operators. With like constructors can be associated with an equational theory containing two axioms (left commutativity (C ) and absorption (A b ) cf. e.g. 13] while union like symbols are associated to ACI1 equational theories (see, e.g. [4]) A by product of the results of this paper is a systematic proof of the fact that the classes of formulae and problems that can be expressed with an (A b ) C ) unification (constraint) problem and those concerned with ACI(1) unification (constraint) problems with constants can not be ....
.... Phi with and it is equivalent to Y X . A contradiction to Theorem 2. ut A similar result can be obtained for since X = Y X X Y . 4 Independence results for equational theories The two set constructor symbols analyzed in this paper have been studied in the context of unification theory [4] and constraints. In this contexts the properties of the constructors are usually given by equational axioms. f Delta j Deltag, and ; are governed by the axioms of Fig. 1. As far as the theory (A b ) C ) is concerned, in [10] it is presented the first unification algorithm for the general ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
F. Baader and K. U. Schulz. Unification theory. In Wolfgang Bibel and Peter H. Schmidt, editors, Automated Deduction: A Basis for Applications. Volume I, Foundations: Calculi and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1998.
....non product subterms of the original symbolic sequence. The resulting set of product derivability problems is naturally reduced to a system of quadratic Diophantine equations, as shown in Section 6. One of the steps along the way is Abelian group unification, which is known to be decidable [2]. In Section 7, we extend our approach to protocols with Diffie Hellman exponentiation such as GDH [23] under the restriction that multiplication may appear only in exponents (the problem is undecidable otherwise) We replace exponentials by a combination of products and uninterpreted functions, ....
.... . More precisely, 8s i ; s j 2 St(C) we guess whether s i = s j or not. Since St(C) is finite, there are only a finite number of possible equivalence relations to consider. Each equivalence relation represents a set of unification problems in an Abelian group, which are decidable [2]. There are finitely many most general unifiers consistent with any given equivalence relation. By exhaustive enumeration of all possible equivalence relations and all possible most general unifiers for each, we discover a partial substitution consistent with , i.e. s i = s j if and only ....
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
....[1] can be explicated as follows: Algorithm 1 (Typechecking B according to Abrial) In this algorithm and in the names of the typechecking rules, the apostrophe is a decoration of numbers, and so i denotes the number i decorated with an apostrophe. The algorithm uses standard unification (c.f. [5]) as tailored for the type language. Precondition: Input is a type sequent. 1. Eliminate all derived constructs from the input. 2. Let i # 1. 3. Unify the input with the consequent of rule T i, and assign the unifier to #. If unsuccessful, go to step 7. 4. For each antecedent of rule T i, ....
Baader, F., Snyder, W.: Unification theory. In Robinson, A., Voronkov, A., eds.: Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier (North-Holland), Amsterdam (2001)
....to the completion in rewriting systems modulo AC1) X 1 X n X n 1 X n m D Z 1 Z n m Then Prog is defined exactly as before. Of course unification must be considered up to AC1 structural axioms (see algorithms and further references in [18,4]) Example 2. Consider a simple CCS like calculus, with AC1 parallel composition and only one rule for asynchronous communication a X The Prolog program induced by the original proof rule is shown in Fig. 3, where a is the program representation for action a. The following query ....
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier Science, 2000.
....algorithm capable of helping in the analysis of this protocol, or protocols like this, must take these properties into account. 3 Equational unification, equational rewriting Some basic definitions are given in this section. For detailed surveys, we refer the reader to [7] term rewriting) and [3] (unification) Let F be a finite set of function symbols and V a denumerable set of variables. The set of terms generated by F and V is denoted T (F; V ) A position in a term is a sequence of integers denoting the path to a node from the top level operator of the term, which is conventionally ....
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification Theory. In: Handbook of Automated Reasoning (J.A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors), Vol I, 447--533. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2001.
....x, y and z over individual variables, x, y and z over sequence variables, v and u over (individual or sequence) variables, c over object constants, f , g and h over (fixed or flexible arity) function symbols, s and t over terms. We generalize standard notions of unification theory ([2]) for a theory with sequence variables and flexible arity symbols. Definition 3 (Substitution) A substitution is a finite set s 1 , x n where n 0, m 0 and for all 1 m, k i x 1 , x n are distinct individual variables, x 1 , xm ....
....equations involving trigonometric or hyperbolic functions, exponentials and logarithms. The following example shows, for instance, how a radical equation is solved: In[1] Solve # Out[1] However, it is unable to solve a symbolic equation like f(x, y) f(a, b) In[2]: Solve[f [x, y] f [a, b] Solve: dinv : The expression f[x, y] involves unknowns in more than one argument, so inverse functions cannot be used Out[2] Solve[f[x, y] f[a, b] Also, Solve can not deal with equations involving sequence variables. On the basis of the unification ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
No context found.
Siekmann, J org. (1987). Unification Theory. Journal of Symbolic Computation.
No context found.
Franz Baader and Jorg H. Siekmann. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, chapter `Unification Theory'. Oxford University Press, 1993.
No context found.
Franz Baader and Jorg H. Siekmann. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, chapter `Unification Theory'. Oxford University Press, 1993.
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 8, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 8, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 445-- 532. Elsevier Science, 2001. 39
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 8, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 8, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
No context found.
F. Baader and J. Siekmann. Unification theory. In C. Hogger, D. Gabbay, and J. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 2, pages 41--126. Oxford Science Publications, 1994.
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier Science, 2000.
No context found.
F. Baader and J. Siekmann. Unification theory. In D. Gabbay, C. Hogger, and J. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 2, pages 41--126. Oxford Science Publications, 1994.
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 8, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
No context found.
F. Baader and W. Snyder. Unification theory. In A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 8, pages 445--532. Elsevier Science, 2001.
No context found.
J. H. Siekmann. Unification Theory. In C. Kirchner, editor, Unification. Academic Press, 1990. 47
No context found.
J. H. Siekmann. Unification Theory. In C. Kirchner, editor, Unification. Academic Press, 1990.
No context found.
Franz Baader and Jorg Siekmann. Unification theory. In D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, and J.A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pages 41--125. Oxford University Press, 1994.
No context found.
Siekmann, J. H. Unification theory. In Journal of Symbolic Computations, volume 7, pages 207-274. Academic Press, 1989.
No context found.
F. Baader, W. Snyder. Unification Theory. In: J.A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2001.
No context found.
Baader, F. and J. H. Siekmann: 1994, `Unification Theory'. In: D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson (eds.): Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. pp. 41--125.
First 50 documents Next 50
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