Skip to main content

Textbook Proofs Meet Formal Logic – The Problem of Underspecification and Granularity

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3863))

Abstract

Unlike computer algebra systems, automated theorem provers have not yet achieved considerable recognition and relevance in mathematical practice. A significant shortcoming of mathematical proof assistance systems is that they require the fully formal representation of mathematical content, whereas in mathematical practice an informal, natural-language-like representation where obvious parts are omitted is common. We aim to support mathematical paper writing by integrating a scientific text editor and mathematical assistance systems such that mathematical derivations authored by human beings in a mathematical document can be automatically checked. To this end, we first define a calculus-independent representation language for formal mathematics that allows for underspecified parts. Then we provide two systems of rules that check if a proof is correct and at an acceptable level of granularity. These checks are done by decomposing the proof into basic steps that are then passed on to proof assistance systems for formal verification. We illustrate our approach using an example textbook proof.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abel, A., Chang, B.-Y.E., Pfenning, F.: Human-readable machine-verifiable proofs for teaching constructive logic. In: Egly, U., Fiedler, A., Horacek, H., Schmitt, S. (eds.) PROC of the Workshop on Proof Transformation, Proof Presentations and Complexity of Proofs (PTP 2001), pp. 37–50. Universitá degli studi di Siena (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Autexier, S., Benzmüller, C., Fiedler, A., Lesourd, H.: Integrating proof assistants as reasoning and verification tools into a scientific WYSIWYG editor. In: Aspinall, D., Lüth, C. (eds.) User Interfaces for Theorem Provers (UITP 2005), pp. 16–39 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bartle, R.G., Sherbert, D.: Introduction to Real Analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester (1982)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. de Bruijn, N.G.: The mathematical vernacular, a language for mathematics with typed sets. In: Nederpelt, et al. (eds.) [9], pp. 865–935.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hilbert, D.: Die Grundlegung der elementaren Zahlenlehre. Mathematische Annalen 104, 485–494 (1930)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Huang, X.: Human Oriented Proof Presentation: A Reconstructive Approach, Infix, Sankt Augustin, Germany. DISKI, vol. 112 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kamareddine, F., Maarek, M., Wells, J.: MathLang: An experience driven language of mathematics. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 93C, 138–160 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kamareddine, F., Nederpelt, R.: A refinement of de Bruijn’s formal language of mathematics. Logic, Language and Information 13(3), 287–340 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Nederpelt, R.P., Geuvers, J.H., de Vrijer, R.C. (eds.): Selected Papers on Automath. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 133. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Nederpelt, R.: Weak Type Theory: A formal language for mathematics. Computing Science Report 02-05, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Math. and Comp. Sc. (May 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nipkow, T.: Structured Proofs in Isar/HOL. In: Geuvers, H., Wiedijk, F. (eds.) TYPES 2002. LNCS, vol. 2646, pp. 259–278. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Ranta, A.: Grammatical framework — a type-theoretical grammar formalism. Journal of Functional Programming 14(2), 145–189 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Siekmann, J.H., Brezhnev, V., Cheikhrouhou, L., Fiedler, A., Horacek, H., Kohlhase, M., Meier, A., Melis, E., Moschner, M., Normann, I., Pollet, M., Sorge, V., Ullrich, C., Wirth, C.-P.: Proof development with ΩMEGA. In: Voronkov, A. (ed.) CADE 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2392, pp. 144–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wenzel, M., Wiedijk, F.: A comparison of the mathematical proof languages Mizar and Isar. Journal of Automated Reasoning 29, 389–411 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Autexier, S., Fiedler, A. (2006). Textbook Proofs Meet Formal Logic – The Problem of Underspecification and Granularity. In: Kohlhase, M. (eds) Mathematical Knowledge Management. MKM 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3863. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11618027_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11618027_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-31430-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31431-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics