Progress in Computer-Assisted Inductive Theorem Proving by Human-Orientedness and Descente Infinie?

@article{Wirth2009ProgressIC,
  title={Progress in Computer-Assisted Inductive Theorem Proving by Human-Orientedness and Descente Infinie?},
  author={Claus-Peter Wirth},
  journal={ArXiv},
  year={2009},
  volume={abs/0902.3294}
}
In this position paper we briefly review the development hist ory of automated inductive theorem provingandcomputer-assisted mathematical induction . We think that the current low expectations on progress in this field result from a faulty na rrow-scope historical projection. Our main motivation is to explain — on an abstract but hopeful ly sufficiently descriptive level — why we believe that future progress in the field is to re sult from human-orientedness anddescente infinie . 
Sequent calculus proof systems for inductive definitions
TLDR
These systems are formulated as sequent calculi for classical first-order logic extended with a framework for (mutual) inductive definitions, and it is shown how the formulation of both systems can be generalised to obtain soundness conditions for a general class of infinite proof systems and their corresponding cyclic restrictions.
A Self-Contained and Easily Accessible Discussion of the Method of Descente Infinie and Fermat's Only Explicitly Known Proof by Descente Infinie
TLDR
This paper presents the only proof of Pierre Fermat by descente infinie that is known to exist today and develops a self-contained proof in a modern form, which nevertheless is intended to follow Fermat's ideas closely.
Automation of Mathematical Induction as part of the History of Logic
TLDR
The history of the automation of mathematical induction is reviewed and the role of computer programming in this work is reviewed.

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 194 REFERENCES
Productive use of failure in inductive proof
TLDR
It is shown how the failure if rippling can be used in bridging gaps in the search for inductive proofs, and a novel theorem-proving architecture for supporting the automatic discovery of eureka steps is presented.
How to Prove Inductive Theorems? QUODLIBET!
QuodLibet is a tactic-based inductive theorem proving system that meets today’s standard requirements for theorem provers such as a command interpreter, a sophisticated graphical user interface, and
Descente Infinie + Deduction
TLDR
This work presents an integration of descente infinie into state-of-the-art free-variable sequent and tableau calculi and combines raising, explicit representation of dependence between variables, the liberalized δ-rule, preservation of solutions, and unrestricted applicability of lemmas and induction hypotheses.
The Use of Explicit Plans to Guide Inductive Proofs
  • A. Bundy
  • Computer Science, Mathematics
    CADE
  • 1988
We propose the use of explicit proof plans to guide the search for a proof in automatic theorem proving. By representing proof plans as the specifications of LCF-like tactics, [Gordon et al 79], and
A Guide to UNICOM, an Inductive Theorem Prover Based on Rewriting and Completion Techniques
TLDR
An overview of UNICOM, an inductive theorem prover for equational logic which is based on refined rewriting and completion techniques, and an insight into the most important aspects of the internalproof process is provided.
Lazy Generation of Induction Hypotheses
TLDR
Analysis of successful induction proofs reveals that these proofs can be guided without reference to a specific induction axiom, which means that required induction hypotheses can be computed during the proof.
A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle
TLDR
The paper concludes with a discussion of several principles which are applicable to the design of efficient proof-procedures employing resolution as the basle logical process.
Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning, Essays in Honor of Jörg H. Siekmann on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday
TLDR
A Portrait of a Scientist: Logic, AI and Politics, and some Reflections on Proof Transformations.
Nominal Techniques in Isabelle/HOL
TLDR
The main technical novelty of this work is that it is compatible with the axiom-of-choice (unlike earlier nominal logic work by Pitts et al); thus it was able to implement all results in Isabelle/HOL and use them to formalise the standard proofs for Church-Rosser and strong-normalisation.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...