In Meltzer, Bernard and Donald Michie (Eds.). Machine Intelligence 5, pp. 78-98. Edinburgh University Press.

This paper shows how a question-answering system can be constructed usingfirst-order logic as its language and a resolution-type theorem-prover as itsdeductive mechanism. A working computer-program, Q A3, based on theseideas is described. The performance of the program compares favorably withseveral other general question-answering systems.Reprinted in B. L. Webber and N. J. Nilsson (eds.), Readings in Artificial Intelligence, pp, 202-222, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 1981 Machine Intelligence 4, pp. 183-205 Meltzer, B. and Michie, D.(eds.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Note: PDF of full volume downloadable by clicking on title above (26 MB). Selected individual chapters available from the links below. CONTENTSINTRODUCTION MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS1 The morphology of prex—an essay in meta-algorithmics. J. LAS KS 32 Program schemata. M. S. PATE RSON 193 Language definition and compiler validation. J. J. FLORENTIN 334 Placing trees in lexicographic order. H. I.S COINS 43 THEOREM PROVING5 A new look at mathematics and its mechanization. B. M ELTZER 636 Some notes on resolution strategies. B. MELTZER 717 The generalized resolution principle. J. A. ROBINSON 778 Some tree-paring strategies for theorem proving. D.LUCKHAM 959 Automatic theorem proving with equality substitutions andmathematical induction. J. L. D ARLINGTON 113 MACHINE LEARNING AND HEURISTIC PROGRAMMING10 On representations of problems of reasoning about actions.S.AMAREL 13111 Descriptions. E.W.ELCOCK 17312 Kalah on Atlas. A.G.BELL 18113 Experiments with a pleasure-seeking automaton: J. E. DORAN 19514 Collective behaviour and control problems. V.I.VARSHAVSKY 217 MAN—MACHINE INTERACTION15 A comparison of heuristic, interactive, and unaided methods ofsolving a shortest-route problem. D.MICHIE, J. G. FLEMING andJ. V.OLDFIELD 24516 Interactive programming at Carnegie Tech. A.H.BOND 25717 Maintenance of large computer systems—the engineer's assistant.M.H.J.BAYLIS 269 COGNITIVE PROCESSES: METHODS AND MODELS18 The syntactic analysis of English by machine. J.P.THORNE,P.BRATLEY and H.DEWAR 28119 The adaptive memorization of sequences. H.C.LONOUETHIGGINSand A.ORTONY 311 PATTERN RECOGNITION20 An application of Graph Theory in pattern recognition.C.J.HILDITCH 325 PROBLEM-ORIENTED LANGUAGES21 Some semantics for data structures. D. PARK 35122 Writing search algorithms in functional form. R.M.BURSTALL 37323 Assertions: programs written without specifying unnecessaryorder. J.M.FOSTER 38724 The design philosophy of Pop-2. R.J.POPPLESTONE 393 INDEX 403 Machine Intelligence Workshop

Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. To view the rest of this content please follow the download PDF link above.

The generalized resolution principle is a single inference principle which provides, by itself, a complete formulation of the quantifier-free first-order predicate calculus with equality. It is a natural generalization of the various versions and extensions of the resolution principle, each of which it includes as special cases; but in addition it supplies all of the inferential machinery which is needed in order to be able to treat the intended interpretation of the equality symbol as'built in', and obviates the need to include special axioms of equality in the formulation of every theorem-proving problem which makes use of that notion. The completeness theory of the generalized resolution principle exploits the very intuitive and natural idea of attempting to construct counterexamples to the theorems for which proofs are wanted, and makes this the central concept. It is shown how a proof of a theorem is generated automatically by the breakdown of a sustained attempt to construct a counterexample for it. The kind of proof one gets depends entirely on the way in which the attempt to construct a counterexample is organized, and the theory places virtually no restrictions on how this shall be done. Consequently there is a very wide freedom in the form which proofs may take: the individual inferences in a proof may be very'small' or very'large' (in a scale of measurement which, roughly speaking, weighs the amount of computing necessary to check that the inference is correct). It is even correct to infer the truth of a true proposition in just one step, but, presumably, to offer such a proof to someone who wishes to be convinced of the proposition's truth would not be helpful epistemologically. His conviction would come, not from contemplating the proof itself, but rather from examining the computation which shows the correctness of its single inference step.

"The purpose of this paper is to clarify some basic issues of choice of representation for problems of reasoning about actions. The general problem of re- Presentation is concerned with the relationship between different ways of formulating a problem to a problem solving system and the efficiency with which the system can be expected to find a solution to the problem. An understanding of the relationship between problem formulation and problem solving efficiency is a prerequisite for the design of procedures that can automatically choose the most `appropriate' representation of a problem ( they can find a `point of view' of the problem that maximally simplifies the process of finding a solution).Many problems of practical importance are problems of reasoning about actions. In these problems, a course of action has to be found that satisfies a number of specified conditions. A formal definition of this class of problems is given in the next section, in the context of a general conceptual framework for formulating these problems for computers. Everyday examples of reasoning about actions include planning an airplane trip, organizing a dinner party, etc. There are many examples of industrial and military problems in this category, such as scheduling assembly and transportation processes, designing a program for a computer, planning a military operation, etc."In D.Michie (Ed.), Machine intelligence 3. New York: American Elsevier,131-171

In Hart, J. and Takasu, S. (Eds.), Systems and Computer Science. University of Toronto Press

The fundamental texts of the great classical period in modern logic, some of them never before available in English translation, are here gathered together for the first time. Modern logic, heralded by Leibniz, may be said to have been initiated by Boole, De Morgan, and Jevons, but it was the publication in 1879 of Gottlob Frege's Begriffsschrift that opened a great epoch in the history of logic by presenting, in full-fledged form, the propositional calculus and quantification theory. Frege's book, translated in its entirety, begins the present volume. The emergence of two new fields, set theory and foundations of mathematics, on the borders of logic, mathematics, and philosophy, is depicted by the texts that follow. Peano and Dedekind illustrate the trend that led to Principia Mathematica.

The formulation of the resolution principle by J. A. Robinson (1965a) has provided the impetus for a number of recent efforts in automatic theoremproving. These programs have generated proofs of some interesting propositions of number theory, in addition to theorems of first-order functional logic and group theory. A'literal' is an n-place predicate expression or its negation F(xi, x2,.-.., x) F(xi, x2,., x „) whose arguments are individual variables, individual constants, or functional expressions. Quantifiers do not occur in these formulae, since existentially quantified variables have been replaced by functions of universally quantified ones, and the remaining variables may therefore be taken as universally quantified. For example, the number-theoretic proposition'For all x and y, if x is a divisor of y then there exists some z such that x times z equals y' may be symbolised as D(x, y)v T(x, f(x, y), y) in which D(x, y)' stands for x is a divisor of y' and 7(x, y, z)' stands for'x times y equals z'.

Get Citation Alerts New Citation Alert added!