2001
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45744-5_34
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

JProver: Integrating Connection-Based Theorem Proving into Interactive Proof Assistants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The time limit for all proof attempts was 300 s. The results of ileanCoP are listed in the last column of Table 4. We have also included the results of the following five theorem provers for intuitionistic first-order logic: JProver [25] (implemented in ML using a non-clausal connection calculus and prefixes), the Prolog and C versions of ft [24] (using an intuitionistic tableau calculus with many additional optimisation techniques and a contraction-free calculus [6] for propositional formulae), ileanSeP (using an intuitionistic tableau calculus; see http://www.leancop.de/ileansep) and ileanTAP…”
Section: Performance Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The time limit for all proof attempts was 300 s. The results of ileanCoP are listed in the last column of Table 4. We have also included the results of the following five theorem provers for intuitionistic first-order logic: JProver [25] (implemented in ML using a non-clausal connection calculus and prefixes), the Prolog and C versions of ft [24] (using an intuitionistic tableau calculus with many additional optimisation techniques and a contraction-free calculus [6] for propositional formulae), ileanSeP (using an intuitionistic tableau calculus; see http://www.leancop.de/ileansep) and ileanTAP…”
Section: Performance Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The development of proof calculi and implementations based on this characterisation (e.g. [11,21,22,25]) were restricted to non-clausal procedures, making it difficult to use more established clausal methods (e.g. [3,4,13,14]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prefixes represent context management in these logics in a very compact way, which makes them appealing for automating proof search. Efficient string unification algorithms for prefixes exist (Otten and Kreitz, 1996), proof search procedures based on Wallen's representations have been developed (Kreitz and Otten, 1999), and experiments with implementations of these procedures have demonstrated the advantages of the approach (Schmitt et al, 2001).…”
Section: Towards Matrices For Mellmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two such instances of its applications include the Nuprl logical programming environment [15] and Jprover [16], an intuitionistic theorem prover that has been integrated with the Nuprl and MetaPRL [2] proof assistants. In both of these examples, the MathBus term structure is used as a means for communicating terms across different systems with inherently different term syntax.…”
Section: Final Reportmentioning
confidence: 99%