Proof by analogy in mural

One of the most important advantages of using a formal method of developing software is that one can prove that development steps are correct with respect to their specification. Conducting proofs by hand, however,can be time consuming to the extent that designers have to judge whether a proof of a particular obligation is worth conducting. Even if hand proofs are worth conducting, how do we know that they are correct? One approach to overcoming this problem is to use an automatic theorem proving system to develop and check our proofs. However, in order to enable present day theorem provers to check proofs, one has to conduct them in much more detail than hand proofs. Carrying out more detailed proofs is of course more time consuming. This paper describes the use of proof by analogy in an attempt to reduce the time spent on proofs. We develop and implement a proof follower based on analogy and present two examples to illustrate its characteristics. One example illustrates the successful use of the proof follower. The other example illustrates that the follower's failure can provide a hint that enables the user to complete a proof

Constitutional Law--Double Jeopardy--Prosecutions by both a City and a State for an Identical Offense as a Violation of the Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy--\u3cem\u3eWaller v. State\u3c/em\u3e

In Benton v. Maryland, decided in June of this year, the Supreme Court explicitly extended fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Palko was specifically overruled to the extent that it was inconsistent with the Benton decision. Thus, the theories traditionally used to defend prosecutions by both a city and a state for the same offense must be examined to determine whether they are still valid when the fifth amendment\u27s prohibition against double jeopardy is applied to state proceedings. This Recent Development examines the implications of the Benton decision for those theories