Automated theorem proving systems validate or refute whether a conjecture is a logical consequence of a given set of assumptions. Higher-order provers have been successfully applied in academic and industrial applications, such as planning, software and hardware verification, or knowledge-based systems. Recent studies moreover suggest that automation of higher-order logic, in particular, yields effective means for reasoning within expressive non-classical logics, enabling a whole new range of applications, including computer-assisted formal analysis of arguments in metaphysics. My work focuses on the theoretical foundations, effective implementation and practical application of higher-order theorem proving systems.
This article briefly introduces higher-order reasoning in general and presents an overview of the design and implementation of the higher-order theorem prover Leo-III. In the second part, some example applications of Leo-III are discussed.
1. A. Church. A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(2):56–68, 1940.Search in Google Scholar
2. L. Henkin. Completeness in the Theory of Types. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 15(2):81–91, 1950.Search in Google Scholar
3. C. Benzmüller, C. Brown, and M. Kohlhase. Higher-Order Semantics and Extensionality. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 69(4):1027–1088, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
4. L. Bachmair and H. Ganzinger. Rewrite-Based Equational Theorem Proving with Selection and Simplification. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(3):217–247, 1994.Search in Google Scholar
5. G. Sutcliffe. The TPTP Problem Library and Associated Infrastructure – From CNF to TH0, TPTP v6.4.0. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 59(4):483–502, 2017.Search in Google Scholar
6. A. Steen and C. Benzmüller. The Higher-Order Prover Leo-III. Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2018), LNCS, vol. 10900, pp. 108–116, Springer, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
7. A. Steen. Extensional Paramodulation for Higher-Order Logic and its Effective Implementation Leo-III. Dissertationen zur Künstlichen Intelligenz, vol. 345, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA GmbH, Berlin, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
8. T. Gleißner, A. Steen, and C. Benzmüller. Theorem Provers For Every Normal Modal Logic. Proceedings of the 21st Int. Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR-21), EPiC Series in Computing, vol. 46, pp. 14–30, EasyChair, 2017.Search in Google Scholar
9. C. Benzmüller and D. Miller. Automation of Higher-Order Logic. Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 9, pp. 215–254, Elsevier, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
10. C. Benzmüller and B. Woltzenlogel Paleo. Experiments in Computational Metaphysics: Gödel’s Proof of God’s Existence. Savijnanam, 9:43–57, 2017.Search in Google Scholar
11. C. Benzmüller and X. Parent. First Experiments with a Flexible Infrastructure for Normative Reasoning. CoRR, http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02929, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
12. J. Carmo and A. J. I. Jones. Deontic Logic and Contrary-to-Duties. Handbook of Philosophical Logic: Volume 8, pp. 265–343, Springer, Netherlands, 2002.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston