ABSTRACT This paper introduces a multi-valued variant of higher-order resolution and proves it correct and complete with respect to a variant of Henkin's general model semantics. This resolution method is parametric in the number of truth values as well as in the particular choice of the set of connectives (given by arbitrary truth tables) and even substitutional quantifiers. In the course of the completeness proof we establish a model existence theorem for this logical system. The work reported in this paper (...) provides a basis for developing higher-order mechanizations for many non-classical logics. (shrink)

A semantic embedding of quantified conditional logic in classical higher-order logic is utilized for reducing cut-elimination in the former logic to existing results for the latter logic. The presented embedding approach is adaptable to a wide range of other logics, for many of which cut-elimination is still open. However, special attention has to be payed to cut-simulation, which may render cut-elimination as a pointless criterion.

We investigate several approaches to resolution based automated theoremproving in classical higher-order logic (based on Church's simply typedλ-calculus) and discuss their requirements with respect to Henkincompleteness and full extensionality. In particular we focus on Andrews' higher-order resolution (Andrews 1971), Huet's constrained resolution (Huet1972), higher-order E-resolution, and extensional higher-order resolution(Benzmüller and Kohlhase 1997). With the help of examples we illustratethe parallels and differences of the extensionality treatment of these approachesand demonstrate that extensional higher-order resolution is the sole approach thatcan completely avoid (...) additional extensionality axioms. (shrink)

The history of building automated theorem provers for higher-order logic is almost as old as the field of deduction systems itself. The first successful attempts to mechanize and implement higher-order logic were those of Huet [13] and Jensen and Pietrzykowski [17]. They combine the resolution principle for higher-order logic (first studied in [1]) with higher-order unification. The unification problem in typed λ-calculi is much more complex than that for first-order terms, since it has to take the theory of αβη-equality into (...) account. As a consequence, the higher-order unification problem is undecidable and sets of solutions need not even always have most general elements that represent them. Thus the mentioned calculi for higher-order logic have take special measures to circumvent the problems posed by the theoretical complexity of higher-order unification. In this paper, we will exemplify the methods and proof- and model-theoretic tools needed for extending first-order automated theorem proving to higherorder logic. For the sake of simplicity take the tableau method as a basis (for a general introduction to first-order tableaux see part I.1) and discuss the higherorder tableau calculi HT and HTE first presented in [19]. The methods in this paper also apply to higher-order resolution calculi [1, 13, 6] or the higher-order matings method of Peter [3], which extend their first-order counterparts in much the same way. Since higher-order calculi cannot be complete for the standard semantics by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem [11], only the weaker notion of Henkin models [12] leads to a meaningful notion of completeness in higher-order logic. It turns out that the calculi in [1, 13, 3, 19] are not Henkin-complete, since they fail to capture the extensionality principles of higher-order logic. We will characterize the deductive power of our calculus HT (which is roughly equivalent to these calculi) by the semantics of functional Σ-models. To arrive at a calculus that is complete with respect to Henkin models, we build on ideas from [6] and augment HT with tableau construction rules that use the extensionality principles in a goal-oriented way.. (shrink)

Thus, despite the di culty of higher-order automated theorem proving, which has to deal with problems like the undecidability of higher-order uni - cation (HOU) and the need for primitive substitution, there are proof problems which lie beyond the capabilities of rst-order theorem provers, but instead can be solved easily by an higher-order theorem prover (HOATP) like Leo. This is due to the expressiveness of higher-order Logic and, in the special case of Leo, due to an appropriate handling of the (...) extensionality principles (functional extensionality and extensionality on truth values). (shrink)