What can be learned from failed proofs of non-theorems?

This paper reports an investigation into the link between failed proofs and non-theorems. It seeks to answer the question of whether anything more can be learned from a failed proof attempt than can be discovered from a counter-example. We suggest that the branch of the proof in which failure occurs can be mapped back to the segments of code that are the culprit, helping to locate the error. This process of tracing provides finer grained isolation of the offending code fragments than is possible from the inspection of counter-examples. We also discuss ideas for how such a process could be automated.

Using a Generalisation Critic to find Bisimulations for Coinductive Proofs

Coinduction is a method of growing importance in reasoning about functional languages, due to the increasing prominence of lazy data structures. Through the use of bisimulations and proofs that bisimilarity is a congruence in various domains it can be used to prove the congruence of two processes. A coinductive proof requires a relation to be chosen which can be proved to be a bisimulation. We use proof planning to develop a heuristic method which automatically constucts a candidate relation. If this relation doesn't allow the proof to go through a proof critic analyses the reasons why it failed and modifies the relation accordingly. Several proof tools have been developed to aid coinductive proofs but all require user interaction. Crucially they require the user to supply an appropriate relation which the system can then prove to be a bisimulation.