Range-Restricted Interpolation through Clausal Tableaux

We show how variations of range-restriction and also the Horn property can be passed from inputs to outputs of Craig interpolation in first-order logic. The proof system is clausal tableaux, which stems from first-order ATP. Our results are induced by a restriction of the clausal tableau structure, which can be achieved in general by a proof transformation, also if the source proof is by resolution/paramodulation. Primarily addressed applications are query synthesis and reformulation with interpolation. Our methodical approach combines operations on proof structures with the immediate perspective of feasible implementation through incorporating highly optimized first-order provers

On multiple conclusion deductions in classical logic

Kneale observed that Gentzen’s calculus of natural deductions NK for classical logic is not symmetric and has unnecessarily complicated hypothetical inference rules. Kneale proposed inference rules with multiple conclusions as a basis for a symmetric natural deduction calculus for classical logic. However, Kneale’s informally presented calculus is not complete. In this paper, we define a calculus of multiple conclusion natural deductions (MCD) for classical propositional logic based on Kneale’s multiple conclusion inference rules. For MCD we present elementary proof search that produces proofs in normal form. MCD proof search is motivated and explained as being a notational variant of Smullyan’s analytic tableaux method in its initial part and a notational variant of refutation proofs based on Robinson’s resolution in its final part. We consider MCD to have semantic motivation of both its inference rules and its proof search. This is unusual for the natural deduction calculi as they are syntactically motivated. Syntactic motivation is adequate for intuitionistic logic but not a natural fit for truth-functional classical propositional logic

Integrating a Global Induction Mechanism into a Sequent Calculus

Most interesting proofs in mathematics contain an inductive argument which requires an extension of the LK-calculus to formalize. The most commonly used calculi for induction contain a separate rule or axiom which reduces the valid proof theoretic properties of the calculus. To the best of our knowledge, there are no such calculi which allow cut-elimination to a normal form with the subformula property, i.e. every formula occurring in the proof is a subformula of the end sequent. Proof schemata are a variant of LK-proofs able to simulate induction by linking proofs together. There exists a schematic normal form which has comparable proof theoretic behaviour to normal forms with the subformula property. However, a calculus for the construction of proof schemata does not exist. In this paper, we introduce a calculus for proof schemata and prove soundness and completeness with respect to a fragment of the inductive arguments formalizable in Peano arithmetic.Comment: 16 page

Converting ALC Connection Proofs into ALC Sequents

The connection method has earned good reputation in the area of automated theorem proving, due to its simplicity, efficiency and rational use of memory. This method has been applied recently in automatic provers that reason over ontologies written in the description logic ALC. However, proofs generated by connection calculi are difficult to understand. Proof readability is largely lost by the transformations to disjunctive normal form applied over the formulae to be proven. Such a proof model, albeit efficient, prevents inference systems based on it from effectively providing justifications and/or descriptions of the steps used in inferences. To address this problem, in this paper we propose a method for converting matricial proofs generated by the ALC connection method to ALC sequent proofs, which are much easier to understand, and whose translation to natural language is more straightforward. We also describe a calculus that accepts the input formula in a non-clausal ALC format, what simplifies the translation.Comment: In Proceedings PxTP 2019, arXiv:1908.08639. Thanks to CAPES: Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personne

Satisfiability Games for Branching-Time Logics

The satisfiability problem for branching-time temporal logics like CTL*, CTL and CTL+ has important applications in program specification and verification. Their computational complexities are known: CTL* and CTL+ are complete for doubly exponential time, CTL is complete for single exponential time. Some decision procedures for these logics are known; they use tree automata, tableaux or axiom systems. In this paper we present a uniform game-theoretic framework for the satisfiability problem of these branching-time temporal logics. We define satisfiability games for the full branching-time temporal logic CTL* using a high-level definition of winning condition that captures the essence of well-foundedness of least fixpoint unfoldings. These winning conditions form formal languages of \omega-words. We analyse which kinds of deterministic {\omega}-automata are needed in which case in order to recognise these languages. We then obtain a reduction to the problem of solving parity or B\"uchi games. The worst-case complexity of the obtained algorithms matches the known lower bounds for these logics. This approach provides a uniform, yet complexity-theoretically optimal treatment of satisfiability for branching-time temporal logics. It separates the use of temporal logic machinery from the use of automata thus preserving a syntactical relationship between the input formula and the object that represents satisfiability, i.e. a winning strategy in a parity or B\"uchi game. The games presented here work on a Fischer-Ladner closure of the input formula only. Last but not least, the games presented here come with an attempt at providing tool support for the satisfiability problem of complex branching-time logics like CTL* and CTL+