Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorBundy, Alanen
dc.contributor.advisorGreen, Ianen
dc.contributor.authorDennis, Louiseen
dc.date.accessioned2004-06-17T15:02:58Z
dc.date.available2004-06-17T15:02:58Z
dc.date.issued1998-07
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1842/534
dc.descriptionCentre for Intelligent Systems and their Applicationsen
dc.description.abstractCoinduction is a proof rule which is the dual of induction. It allows reasoning about non-well-founded sets and is of particular use for reasoning about equivalences.In this thesis I present an automation of coinductive theorem proving. This automation is based on the ideas of proof planning [Bundy 88]. Proof planning as the name suggests, plans the higher level steps in a proof without performing the formal checking which is also required for a verification. The automation has focused on the use of coinduction to prove the equivalence of programs in a small lazy functional language which is similar to Haskell.One of the hardest parts in a coinductive proof is the choice of a relation, called a bisimulation. The automation here described makes an initial simplified guess at a bisimulation and then uses critics, revisions based on failure, and generalisation techniques to refine this guess.The proof plan for coinduction and the critic have been implemented in CLAM [Bundy et al 90b] with encouraging results. The planner has been successfully tested on a number of theorems. Comparison of the proof planner for coinduction with the proof plan for induction implemented in CLAM has gighlighted a number of equivalences and dualities in the process of these proofs and has also suggested improvements to both systems.This work has demonstrated not only the possibility of fully automated theorem provers for coinduction but has also demonstrated the uses of proof planning for comparison of proof techniques.This work has demonstrated not only the possibility of fully automated theorem provers for coinduction but has also demonstrated the uses of proof planning for comparison of proof techniques.en
dc.format.extent1689963 bytesen
dc.format.extent1225727 bytesen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/postscripten
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUniversity of Edinburgh. College of Science and Engineering. School of Informatics.en
dc.subject.otherCoinductionen
dc.subject.otherproof ruleen
dc.subject.otherinductionen
dc.titleProof Planning Coinductionen
dc.typeThesis or Dissertationen
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen
dc.type.qualificationnamePhD Doctor of Philosophyen


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record