Towards Ranking Geometric Automated Theorem Provers

April 01, 2019 ยท The Ethereal ยท ๐Ÿ› ThEdu@FLoC

๐Ÿ”ฎ THE ETHEREAL: The Ethereal
Pure theory โ€” exists on a plane beyond code

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Nuno Baeta, Pedro Quaresma arXiv ID 1904.00619 Category cs.LO: Logic in CS Cross-listed cs.AI Citations 2 Venue ThEdu@FLoC Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
The field of geometric automated theorem provers has a long and rich history, from the early AI approaches of the 1960s, synthetic provers, to today algebraic and synthetic provers. The geometry automated deduction area differs from other areas by the strong connection between the axiomatic theories and its standard models. In many cases the geometric constructions are used to establish the theorems' statements, geometric constructions are, in some provers, used to conduct the proof, used as counter-examples to close some branches of the automatic proof. Synthetic geometry proofs are done using geometric properties, proofs that can have a visual counterpart in the supporting geometric construction. With the growing use of geometry automatic deduction tools as applications in other areas, e.g. in education, the need to evaluate them, using different criteria, is felt. Establishing a ranking among geometric automated theorem provers will be useful for the improvement of the current methods/implementations. Improvements could concern wider scope, better efficiency, proof readability and proof reliability. To achieve the goal of being able to compare geometric automated theorem provers a common test bench is needed: a common language to describe the geometric problems; a comprehensive repository of geometric problems and a set of quality measures.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Logic in CS