Case-Analysis for Rippling and Inductive Proof

Rippling is a heuristic used to guide rewriting and is typically used for inductive theorem proving. We introduce a method to support case-analysis within rippling. Like earlier work, this allows goals containing if-statements to be proved automatically. The new contribution is that our method also supports case-analysis on datatypes. By locating the case-analysis as a step within rippling we also maintain the termination. The work has been implemented in IsaPlanner and used to extend the existing inductive proof method. We evaluate this extended prover on a large set of examples from Isabelle’s theory library and from the inductive theorem proving literature. We find that this leads to a significant improvement in the coverage of inductive theorem proving. The main limitations of the extended prover are identified, highlight the need for advances in the treatment of assumptions during rippling and when conjecturing lemmas

Inductive Theorem Proving and Computer Algebra in the Mathweb Software Bus

Reasoning systems have reached a high degree of maturity in the last decade. However, even the most successful systems are usually not general purpose problem solvers but are typically specialised on problems in a certain domain. The MathWeb SOftware Bus (Mathweb-SB) is a system for combining reasoning specialists via a common osftware bus. We described the integration of the lambda-clam systems, a reasoning specialist for proofs by induction, into the MathWeb-SB. Due to this integration, lambda-clam now offers its theorem proving expertise to other systems in the MathWeb-SB. On the other hand, lambda-clam can use the services of any reasoning specialist already integrated. We focus on the latter and describe first experimnents on proving theorems by induction using the computational power of the MAPLE system within lambda-clam

Respiratory Conditions

Proof critics are a technology from the proof planning paradigm. They examine failed proof attempts in order to extract information which can be used to generate a patch which will allow the proof to go through. We consider the proof of the $quot;whisky problem$quot;, a challenge problem from the domain of temporal logic. The proof requires a generalisation of the original conjecture and we examine two proof critics which can be used to create this generalisation. Using these critics we believe we have produced the first automatic proofs of this challenge problem. We use this example to motivate a comparison of the two critics and propose that there is a place for specialist critics as well as powerful general critics. In particular we advocate the development of critics that do not use meta-variables