System Description: E 1.8

Schulz, Stephan

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45221-5_49

Cited by 152 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a short description of E including performance data, see [Sch04]. A more detailed description has been published as [Sch02b], while the most recent published description is [Sch13]. Most papers on E and much more information is available at or a few hops away from the E home page, http://www.eprover.org.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

E 2.0 User Manual

Schulz¹

2018

EasyChair Preprints

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E is an equational theorem prover for full first-order logic, based on superposition and rewriting. In this preliminary manual we first give a short introduction for impatient new users, and then cover calculus and proof procedure. The manual covers proof search control and related options, followed by input and output formats. Finally, it describes some additional tools that are part of the E distribution.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

E 2.0 User Manual

Schulz¹

2018

EasyChair Preprints

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…E [23], SPASS [25], and Vampire [18], are based on resolution and an extension called superposition. Studying the resolution calculus is furthermore an integral part of many university courses on logic in computer science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formalization of the Resolution Calculus for First-Order Logic

Schlichtkrull

2016

Interactive Theorem Proving

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most current first-order ATPs, such as E [45], iProver [34], or Vampire [36], output proofs in the TSTP (Thousands of Solutions from Theorem Provers) format [51] from the TPTP initiative [50]. 1 This format has a standard syntax and fixed conventions [53].…”

Section: Current Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Checkable Proofs for First-Order Theorem Proving

Reger¹,

Suda²

EPiC Series in Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by the success of the DRAT proof format for certification of boolean satisfiability (SAT), we argue that a similar goal of having unified automatically checkable proofs should be sought by the developers of automatic first-order theorem provers (ATPs). This would not only help to further increase assurance about the correctness of prover results, but would also be indispensable for tools which rely on ATPs, such as "hammers" employed within interactive theorem provers. The current situation, represented by the TSTP format, is unsatisfactory, because this format does not have a standardised semantics and thus cannot be checked automatically. Providing such semantics, however, is a challenging endeavour. One would ideally like to have a proof format which covers only-satisfiability-preserving operations such as Skolemisation and is versatile enough to encompass various proving methods (i.e. not just superposition) or is perhaps even open-ended towards yet to be conceived methods or at least easily extendable in principle. Going beyond pure first-order logic to theory reasoning in the style of SMT, or beyond proofs to certification of satisfiability are further interesting challenges. Although several projects have already provided partial solutions in this direction, we would like to use the opportunity of ARCADE to further promote the idea and gather critical mass needed for its satisfactory realisation. The challengeWe would like to propose to the first-order ATP community the challenge of designing, implementing and bringing into practice a unified mechanically checkable proof format along with an efficient proof checker. The format should support the whole reasoning pipeline including formula preprocessing, be sufficiently general to cover all the solving techniques currently employed by ATPs, and be open to future extensions for proof recording of techniques yet to be developed. In this paper, we summarise the current situation regarding proof output of ATPs, explain why we think striving for a mechanically checkable proof format is a worthy effort, list the main properties we believe an ideal format should satisfy, attempt to give an overview of work already done in the first-order ATP community and related areas, and, finally, suggest possible avenues and the next steps to be taken for meeting the challenge.At this point we add the disclaimer that other people have already examined this challenge in various ways. We attempt to present this previous work and do not claim that what we are suggesting is novel, but instead we are calling for further work in this area. Our main aim at ARCADE is to solicit opinions from experts on why the proposed idea has not yet made its way to practice and on how exactly should the community proceed to achieve the envisioned goal.

show abstract

System Description: E 1.8

Cited by 152 publications

References 13 publications

E 2.0 User Manual

E 2.0 User Manual

Formalization of the Resolution Calculus for First-Order Logic

Checkable Proofs for First-Order Theorem Proving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About