电子式里程表英文精编.doc

Automation Tom Ridge April 12, 2005 Contents 1 Introduction. . .1 2 Requirements. .1 3 Current Automation in Interactive Provers. . . . 4 4 Techniques . . . 5 4.1 Proof Search . . . .6 4.1.1 Logical System . . . 6 4.1.2 Intro Rules . .6 4.2 Equality . .. 8 4.2.1 Rewriting . . .8 4.2.2 Conditional Simplification . . . . 9 4.2.3 Completion 10 4.2.4 Dynamic Completion . .11 4.2.5 Equational Unification .12 5 Interface and Integration . . . .12 6 Assessment . . .13 6.1 Assessment wrt. Requirements . .13 6.2 Completeness .14 6.3 Efficiency .14 6.4 In Practice .15 7 Alternative . . . .16 8 Conclusion . . . .19 1 Introduction Automation can be key to successful mechanisation. In some situations, mechanisation is feasible without automation. Indeed, in highly abstract mathematical areas, most mechanised reasoning consists of the user spelling out complicated arguments which are far beyond those which can currently be tackled by automation. In this setting, automation, if it is used at all, is directed at easily solvable, tightly defined subproblems. A typical example of such a mechanisation is our formalisation of Ramseys Theorem [Rid04]. On the other hand, automation can be fruitfully applied in verification style proofs, where the reasoning is relatively restricted, but the sheer level of detail makes a non-automated mechanisation infeasible. Many man years have been spent developing fully automatic systems such as Vampire[VR] and Otter [McC]. It would be foolish to imagine that we could compete with such systems. Their performance is way beyond that of systems currently implemented in interactive theorem provers. Projects are underway [MP04] to link such systems to interactive theorem provers. This is extremely valuable work: if one knows that a first order statement is provable, then one should probably expect that the machine can provide a proof. In this section, we outline some techniques we have applied in various case studies. Naturally we do not seek to s