LARA

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

sav08:instantiation_plus_ground_resolution [2009/05/14 11:57]
vkuncak
sav08:instantiation_plus_ground_resolution [2015/04/21 17:30]
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== Ground Instantiation plus Ground Resolution as a Proof System ====== 
- 
-We introduce this proof system as an intermediate step between the naive enumeration algorithm based on Herbrand'​s theorem and resolution for first-order logic. 
- 
-Our goal is to avoid explicit enumeration and apply proof system where we do as little search (guessing) as possible, while still being complete. 
- 
-===== Definition ====== 
- 
-The proof system has two rules: ground instantiation and ground resolution. 
- 
-=== Ground Instantiation Rule === 
- 
-\[ 
-\frac{C}{subst(\sigma)(C)} 
-\] 
-where $C$ is a clause and $\sigma$ is a ground substitution. 
- 
-Ground substitution is of the form $\{x_1 \mapsto t_1,​\ldots,​x_n \mapsto t_n\}$ where each $t_i$ is a ground term. 
- 
-=== Ground Resolution Rule === 
- 
-If $A$ is a ground atom and $C,D$ are ground claues, then 
-\[ 
-\frac{C \cup \{\lnot A\}\ \ \ D \cup \{A\}} 
-     {C \cup D} 
-\] 
- 
-Note that this is propositional resolution where propositional variables have "long names" (they are ground atoms). 
- 
-==== Example ==== 
- 
- 
-===== Completeness ===== 
- 
-The proof is based on [[Herbrand'​s Expansion Theorem]] (see also the proof of [[Compactness for First-Order Logic]]). 
- 
-Suppose a set $S$ of clauses is contradictory. ​ By [[Herbrand'​s Expansion Theorem]] and [[Compactness Theorem|Compactness Theorem for Propositional Formulas]], there is some finite subset $S_0 \subseteq expand(S)$ is contradictory. ​ Then there exists a derivation of empty clause from $S_0$ viewed as set of propositional formulas, using propositional resolution. ​ In other words, there exists a derivation of empty clause from $S_0$ using ground resolution rule.  Each element of $S_0$ can be obtained from an element of $S$ using instantiation rule.  This means that there exists a proof tree whose leaves are followed by a single application of instantiation rule, and inner nodes contain ground resolution steps. 
-