EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 56 (2022) RAIRO-Theor. Inf. Appl., 56 (2022) 9 References
Open Access
Issue
RAIRO-Theor. Inf. Appl.
Volume 56, 2022
Article Number 9
Number of page(s) 12
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ita/2022009
Published online 20 December 2022
  1. H.P. Barendregt, W. Dekkers and R. Statman, Lambda Calculus with Types. Perspectives in Logic. Cambridge University Press (2013). [Google Scholar]
  2. A. Biere, M.J.H. Heule, H. van Maaren and T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of satisfiability. Vol. 185 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press (2009). [Google Scholar]
  3. C. Bright, J. Gerhard, I.S. Kotsireas and V. Ganesh, Effective problem solving using SAT solvers, in edited by J. Gerhard and I.S. Kotsireas Maple in Mathematics Education and Research - Third Maple Conference, MC 2019, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, October 15-17, 2019, Proceedings, Vol. 1125 of Communications in Computer and Information Science (Springer 2019) 205–219. [Google Scholar]
  4. S.A. Cook, The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 3-5, 1971, Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA, edited by M.A. Harrison, R.B. Banerji and J.D. Ullman. ACM (1971) 151–158. [Google Scholar]
  5. P. Flajolet and R. Sedgewick, Analytic Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press (2008). [Google Scholar]
  6. H. Fournier, et al., Classical and intuitionistic logic are asymptotically identical. edited by Jacques Duparc and Thomas A. Henzinger, CSL, Vol. 4646 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, (2007) 177–193. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. A. Genitrini. Erratum for the paper Intuitionistic vs Classical Tautologies, Quantitative Comparisons. Personal communication, April 2021. [Google Scholar]
  8. A. Genitrini, J. Kozik and M. Zaionc. Intuitionistic vs. classical tautologies, quantitative comparison, in Types for Proofs and Programs, International Conference, TYPES 2007, Cividale del Friuli, Italy, May 2-5, 2007, Revised Selected Papers, edited by M. Miculan, I. Scagnetto and F. Honsell. Vol. 4941 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer (2007) 100–109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. G. Gentzen. Untersuchungen uber das logische schließen. J. Math. Zeitsch. 39 (1934) 176–210. [Google Scholar]
  10. D. E. Knuth. The art of computer programming, Vol. 4 of Fascicle 3: Generating All Combinations and Partitions. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (2005). [Google Scholar]
  11. D.E. Knuth, The art of computer programming, Vol. 4 of Fascicle 4: Generating All Trees, History of Combinatorial Generation. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (2006). [Google Scholar]
  12. S. Mimram. PROGRAM = PROOF. Independently published (2020). URL: https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B08C97TD9G/. [Google Scholar]
  13. J.-L. Rémy. Un procédé itératif de dénombrement d’arbres binaires et son application à leur génération aléatoire. RAIRO Theor. Informatics Appl. 19 (1985) 179–195. [Google Scholar]
  14. N.J.A. Sloane, The on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences. Published electronically at https://oeis.org/ (2021). [Google Scholar]
  15. A.J. Stam, Generation of a random partition of a finite set by an urn model. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A 35 (1983) 231–240. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. P. Tarau, A hiking trip through the orders of magnitude: deriving efficient generators for closed simply-typed lambda terms and normal forms, in Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation - 26th International Symposium, LOPSTR 2016, Edinburgh, UK, September 6-8, edited by 2016, Revised Selected Papers, M.V. Hermenegildo and P. López-García, Vol. 10184 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer (2016) 240–255. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. P. Tarau and V. de Paiva, Deriving theorems in implicational linear logic, declaratively. Proceedings 36th International Conference on Logic Programming (Technical Communications), ICLP Technical Communications 2020, (Technical Communications) UNICAL, Rende (CS), Italy, 18-24th September 2020, edited by in F. Ricca, et al. Vol. 325 of EPTCS (2020) 110–123. [Google Scholar]
  18. The Sage Developers, SageMath, the Sage Mathematics Software System (Version 7.4), 206. https://www.sagemath.org. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.