Using the TPTP Language for Representing Derivations in Tableau and
Connection Calculi

Otten, Jens; Sutcliffe, Geoff

doi:10.29007/jcqn

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The TPTP format for problems and proofs consists of a set of predicates of the following shape [9]: language(name, role, f ormula, source, usef ul inf o).…”

Section: Fig 3 Proof Certificate: Modulementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means the formula was a result of applying inf erence name to parents. An important requirement is that the parents must be names of previously computed clauses or axioms (as specified in [9]). Unfortunately, a large number of proofs from E-prover contain nested inferences: the parents are not names of clauses but other inference predicates.…”

Section: Fig 3 Proof Certificate: Modulementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its development provided insights on practical challenges of such systems and clarified the kind of compromises the provers and the checkers need to deal with. Fortunately, we have found that proof objects using the TPTP syntax [9] can be straightforwardly translated to a proof certificate for checkers. Unfortunately, as far as we know, no prover uses exactly this syntax, but an approximation of it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Proof Certifier Checkers

Chihani

Libal

Reis

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceDifferent theorem provers work within different formalisms and paradigms, and therefore produce various incompatible proof objects. Currently there is a big effort to establish foundational proof certificates (FPC), which would serve as a common " specification language " for all these formats. Such framework enables the uniform checking of proof objects from many different theorem provers while relying on a small and trusted kernel to do so. Checkers is an implementation of a proof checker using foundational proof certificates. By trusting a small kernel based on (focused) sequent calculus on the one hand and by supporting FPC specifications in a prolog-like language on the other hand, it can be used for checking proofs of a wide range of theorem provers. The focus of this paper is on the output of equational resolution theorem provers and for this end, we specify the paramodulation rule. We describe the architecture of Checkers and demonstrate how it can be used to check proof objects by supplying the FPC specification for a subset of the inferences used by E-prover and checking proofs using these inferences

show abstract

“…The TPTP format for problems and proofs consists of a set of predicates of the following shape [9]: language(name, role, f ormula, source, usef ul inf o).…”

Section: Fig 3 Proof Certificate: Modulementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fig 3 Proof Certificate: Modulementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Proof Certifier Checkers

Chihani

Libal

Reis

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several output formats are available. Version 2.2 of leanCoP supports the output of proofs in the new TPTP syntax for representing derivations in connection calculi [27]. SETHEO [19] and KOMET [7] are other high-performance implementations of the connection calculus.…”

Section: Matrix Characterization a Matrix M Is Valid Iff There Exists A Multiplicity μ A Firstorder Substitution σ And A Set Of Connectiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Specifying and Verifying Organizational Security Properties in First-Order Logic

Brandt

Otten

Kreitz

et al. 2010

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In certain critical cases the data flow between business departments in banking organizations has to respect security policies known as Chinese Wall or Bell-La Padula. We show that these policies can be represented by formal requirements and constraints in first-order logic. By additionally providing a formal model for the flow of data between business departments we demonstrate how security policies can be applied to a concrete organizational setting and checked with a first-order theorem prover. Our approach can be applied without requiring a deep formal expertise and it therefore promises a high potential of usability in the business.

show abstract

“…Equality axioms and axioms to support distinct objects are automatically added if required. The leanCoP core prover returns a very compact connection proof, which can be translated into different proof formats, e.g., into a lean (unofficial) TPTP syntax format for representing connection proofs [66] or into a readable text proof.…”

Section: Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proceedings of the 6th IJCAR ATP System Competition (CASC-J6)

Sutcliffe¹

EPiC Series in Computing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CADE ATP System Competition (CASC) evaluates the performance of sound, fully automatic, classical logic, ATP systems. The evaluation is in terms of the number of problems solved, the number of acceptable proofs and models produced, and the average runtime for problems solved, in the context of a bounded number of eligible problems chosen from the TPTP problem library, and specified time limits on solution attempts. The 6th IJCAR ATP System Competition (CASC-J6) was held on 24th and 28th June 2012. The design of the competition and its rules, and information regarding the competing systems, are provided in this report.

show abstract

Using the TPTP Language for Representing Derivations in Tableau and Connection Calculi

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

The Proof Certifier Checkers

The Proof Certifier Checkers

Specifying and Verifying Organizational Security Properties in First-Order Logic

Proceedings of the 6th IJCAR ATP System Competition (CASC-J6)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About