{"docId":6932,"paperId":5832,"url":"https:\/\/lmcs.episciences.org\/5832","doi":"10.23638\/LMCS-16(4:11)2020","journalName":"Logical Methods in Computer Science","issn":"","eissn":"1860-5974","volume":[{"vid":417,"name":"Volume 16, Issue 4"}],"section":[],"repositoryName":"arXiv","repositoryIdentifier":"1910.03917","repositoryVersion":5,"repositoryLink":"https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/1910.03917v5","dateSubmitted":"2019-10-11 09:10:16","dateAccepted":"2020-10-04 22:52:41","datePublished":"2020-11-30 08:31:51","titles":["Clause Set Cycles and Induction"],"authors":["Hetzl, Stefan","Vierling, Jannik"],"abstracts":["In this article we relate a family of methods for automated inductive theorem proving based on cycle detection in saturation-based provers to well-known theories of induction. To this end we introduce the notion of clause set cycles -- a formalism abstracting a certain type of cyclic dependency between clause sets. We first show that the formalism of clause set cycles is contained in the theory of $\\exists_1$ induction. Secondly we consider the relation between clause set cycles and the theory of open induction. By providing a finite axiomatization of a theory of triangular numbers with open induction we show that the formalism of clause set cycles is not contained in the theory of open induction. Furthermore we conjecture that open induction and clause set cycles are incomparable. Finally, we transfer these results to a concrete method of automated inductive theorem proving called the n-clause calculus."],"keywords":["Computer Science - Logic in Computer Science","Mathematics - Logic"]}