Results 221 to 230 of about 349,803 (277)
Intertwining Operators Beyond the Stark Effect. [PDF]
Commun Math PhysFanelli L +4 more
europepmc +1 more source
On the Monotonicity of Relative Entropy: A Comparative Study of Petz's and Uhlmann's Approaches. [PDF]
Entropy (Basel)Matheus S, Bottacin F, Provenzi E.
europepmc +1 more source
Some of the next articles are maybe not open access.
Related searches:
Related searches:
Journal of Automated Reasoning, 2003
The authors argue that theorem proving can be divided into a computation part and a deduction part. Deduction modulo is a method to remove the computational arguments from proofs. A proof search method is presented based on extended narrowing and resolution which is sound and complete with respect to the sequent calculus modulo, for a large class of ...
Dowek, Gilles +2 more
openaire +5 more sources
The authors argue that theorem proving can be divided into a computation part and a deduction part. Deduction modulo is a method to remove the computational arguments from proofs. A proof search method is presented based on extended narrowing and resolution which is sound and complete with respect to the sequent calculus modulo, for a large class of ...
Dowek, Gilles +2 more
openaire +5 more sources
Who Proved Pythagoras’s Theorem?
The Mathematical Intelligencer, 2022This is a well-argued speculative reconstruction of early Greek proofs of the Pythagorean theorem. Given that, in \textit{A commentary on the first book of Euclid's Elements} Proclus writes that he admired ``those who first became acquainted with the truth of this theorem'', and that he ``marvel[s] more at the writer of the \textit{Elements}, not only ...
openaire +2 more sources
Cybernetics, 1986
Summary: In Part I of the survey [Cybernetics 22, 290-297 (1986); translation from Kibernetika 1986, No.3, 27-33 (1986; Zbl 0641.68137)] we highlighted the main stages in the development of methods of automatic theorem proving, identified a number of directions that merit special attention, and characterized two of these directions, namely: translation
Voronkov, A. A., Degtyarev, A. I.
openaire +3 more sources
Summary: In Part I of the survey [Cybernetics 22, 290-297 (1986); translation from Kibernetika 1986, No.3, 27-33 (1986; Zbl 0641.68137)] we highlighted the main stages in the development of methods of automatic theorem proving, identified a number of directions that merit special attention, and characterized two of these directions, namely: translation
Voronkov, A. A., Degtyarev, A. I.
openaire +3 more sources
WIREs Cognitive Science, 2014
Automated theorem proving is the use of computers to prove or disprove mathematical or logical statements. Such statements can express properties of hardware or software systems, or facts about the world that are relevant for applications such as natural language processing and planning.
openaire +2 more sources
Automated theorem proving is the use of computers to prove or disprove mathematical or logical statements. Such statements can express properties of hardware or software systems, or facts about the world that are relevant for applications such as natural language processing and planning.
openaire +2 more sources
Journal of the ACM, 1976
The concern here is with proof procedures which are generalizations of input or unit deduction. The author's generalizations of input deduction involve lemmas, whereas those of unit deduction involve longer clauses and are akin to Robinson's P1 deduction.
openaire +1 more source
The concern here is with proof procedures which are generalizations of input or unit deduction. The author's generalizations of input deduction involve lemmas, whereas those of unit deduction involve longer clauses and are akin to Robinson's P1 deduction.
openaire +1 more source