Abstract
We describe a program for finding closed form solutions to finite sums. The program was built to test the applicability of the proof planning search control technique in a domain of mathematics outwith induction. This experiment was successful. The series summing program extends previous work in this area and was built in a short time just by providing new series summing methods to our existing inductive theorem proving system CLAM.
One surprising discovery was the usefulness of the ripple tactic in summing series. Rippling is the key tactic for controlling inductive proofs, and was previously thought to be specialised to such proofs. However, it turns out to be the key sub-tactic used by all the main tactics for summing series. The only change required was that it had to be supplemented by a difference matching algorithm to set up some initial meta-level annotations to guide the rippling process. In inductive proofs these annotations are provided by the application of mathematical induction. This evidence suggests that rippling, supplemented by difference matching, will find wide application in controlling mathematical proofs.
The research reported in this paper was supported by SERC grant GR/F/71799, a SERC PostDoctoral Fellowship to the first author and a SERC Senior Fellowship to the third author. We would like to thank the other members of the mathematical reasoning group for their feedback on this project.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore. A Computational Logic. Academic Press, 1979.
A. Bundy. The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In R. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, 9th Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 111–120, Springer-Verlag, 1988.
A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, C. Horn, and A. Smaill. The Oyster-Clam system. In M.E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 647–648, Springer-Verlag, 1990.
A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, J. Hesketh, and A. Smaill. Experiments with proof plans for induction. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 7:303–324, 1991.
A. Bundy, F. van Harmelen, A. Smaill, and A. Ireland. Extensions to the rippling-out tactic for guiding inductive proofs. In M.E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 132–146, Springer-Verlag, 1990.
D. Basin and T. Walsh. Difference Matching. In D. Kapur, editor, 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
R.L. Constable, S.F. Allen, H.M. Bromley, et al. Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System. Prentice Hall, 1986.
E. Clarke and X. Zhao. Analytica — A Theorem Prover for Mathematica. Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991.
R.W. Gosper. Indefinite hypergeometric sums in MACSYMA. In Proc. MAC-SYMA Users Conference, pages 237–252, 1977.
D. Hutter. Guiding inductive proofs. In M.E. Stickel, editor, 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 147–161, Springer-Verlag, 1990.
L. Sterling, A. Bundy, L. Byrd, R. O'Keefe, and B. Silver. Solving symbolic equations with PRESS. J. Symbolic Computation, 7:71–84, 1989.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Walsh, T., Nunes, A., Bundy, A. (1992). The use of proof plans to sum series. In: Kapur, D. (eds) Automated Deduction—CADE-11. CADE 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 607. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55602-8_175
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55602-8_175
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-55602-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47252-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive