2004•Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer ScienceOpen access

Faithfully Reflecting the Structure of Informal Mathematical Proofs into Formal Type Theories

Gueorgui Jojgov, Rob Nederpelt, Maria Lucia Matos Scheffer

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

Mathematical proofs, as written in every-day Common Mathematical Language (CML), are informal and many details are left implicit. To check such proofs with a proof assistant they need to be formalized and elaborated to full detail. In order to reduce the possibility of formalization errors and therefore increase the reliability of the translation of CML texts into type theories, we use a version of Nederpelt's formal language WTT extended with logical notation that encodes the natural deduction proof steps. By using this intermediate version, the subsequent translation into a full-fledged type theory can be made such that the proof clearly reflects the structure of the original CML proof. This makes it easier to ensure that the formalization of the CML text is done correctly, and offers additional advantages over usual representations of proof terms in type theory.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Mathematical proofs, as written in every-day Common Mathematical Language (CML), are informal and many details are left implicit. To check such proofs with a proof assistant they need to be formalized and elaborated to full detail. In order to reduce the possibility of formalization errors and therefore increase the reliability of the translation of CML texts into type theories, we use a version of Nederpelt's formal language WTT extended with logical notation that encodes the natural deduction proof steps. By using this intermediate version, the subsequent translation into a full-fledged type theory can be made such that the proof clearly reflects the structure of the original CML proof. This makes it easier to ensure that the formalization of the CML text is done correctly, and offers additional advantages over usual representations of proof terms in type theory.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Mathematical proofs, as written in every-day Common Mathematical Language (CML), are informal and many details are left implicit. To check such proofs with a proof assistant they need to be formalized and elaborated to full detail. In order to reduce the possibility of formalization errors and therefore increase the reliability of the translation of CML texts into type theories, we use a version of Nederpelt's formal language WTT extended with logical notation that encodes the natural deduction proof steps. By using this intermediate version, the subsequent translation into a full-fledged type theory can be made such that the proof clearly reflects the structure of the original CML proof. This makes it easier to ensure that the formalization of the CML text is done correctly, and offers additional advantages over usual representations of proof terms in type theory.

Key concepts: Mathematical proof, Proof assistant, Type theory, Structural proof theory, Computer science, Notation, Type (biology), Mathematical notation

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Faithfully Reflecting the Structure of Informal Mathematical Proofs into Formal Type Theories — Research Paper | ScholarLens