Textbook proofs meet formal logic - The problem of underspecification and granularity

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3863 LNAI, Issue , 2006, Pages 96-110

  Autexier, Serge ^a   Fiedler, Armin ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGEBRA; COMPUTER SYSTEMS; FILE EDITORS; MATHEMATICAL TECHNIQUES; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS; TEXTBOOKS; THEOREM PROVING;

COMPUTER ALGEBRA SYSTEMS; GRANULARITY; MATHEMATICAL ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS; MATHEMATICAL PRACTICE;

FORMAL LOGIC;

EID: 33745636336     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11618027_7     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Andreas Abel, Bor-Yuh Evan Chang, and Frank Pfenning. Human-readable machine-verifiable proofs for teaching constructive logic. In Uwe Egly, Armin Fiedler, Helmut Horacek, and Stephan Schmitt, editors, Proc. of the Workshop on Proof Transformation, Proof Presentations and Complexity of Proofs (PTP-01), pages 37-50. Universitá degli studi di Siena, 2001.
2. Serge Autexier, Christoph Benzmüller, Armin Fiedler, and Henri Lesourd. Integrating proof assistants as reasoning and verification tools into a scientific WYSI-WYG editor. In David Aspinall and Christoph Lüth, editors, User Interfaces for Theorem Provers (UITP 2005), pages 16-39, 2005.
3. Robert G. Bartle and Donald Sherbert, Introduction to Real Analysis. Wiley, 2 edition, 1982.
4. N. G. de Bruijn. The mathematical vernacular, a language for mathematics with typed sets. In Nederpelt et al. [9], pages 865-935.
5. David Hubert. Die Grundlegung der elementaren Zahlenlehre. Mathematische Annalen, 104:485-494, December 1930.
6. Xiaorong Huang. Human Oriented Proof Presentation: A Reconstructive Approach. Number 112 in DISKI. Infix, Sankt Augustin, Germany, 1996.
7. Fairouz Kamareddine, Manuel Maarek, and Joe Wells, MathLang: An experience driven language of mathematics. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, (93C):138-160, 2004.
8. Fairouz Kamareddine and Rob Nederpelt. A refinement of de Bruijn's formal language of mathematics. Logic, Language and Information, 13(3):287-340, 2004.
9. R. P Nederpelt, J. H. Geuvers, and R. C. de Vrijer, editors. Selected Papers on Automath, volume 133 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Elsevier, 1994.
10. Rob Nederpelt. 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.
11. Tobias Nipkow. Structured Proofs in Isar/HOL. In Herman Geuvers and Freek Wiedijk, editors, Types for Proofs and Programs (TYPES 2002), volume 2646 of LNCS, pages 259-278. Springer, 2003.
12. Aarne Ranta. Grammatical framework - a type-theoretical grammar formalism. Journal of Functional Programming, 14(2):145-189, 2004.
13. Jörg Siekmann, Christoph Benzmüller, Vladimir Brezhnev, Lassaad Cheikhrouhou, Armin Fiedler, Andreas Franke, Helmut Horacek, Michael Kohlhase, Andreas Meier, Erica Melis, Markus Moschner, Immanuel Normann, Martin Pollet, Volker Sorge, Carsten Ullrich, Claus-Peter Wirth, and Jürgen Zimmer. Proof development with ΩMEGA. In Andrei Voronkov, editor, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-18), number 2392 in LNAI, pages 144-149, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002. Springer.
14. M. Wenzel and F. Wiedijk, A comparison of the mathematical proof languages Mizar and Isar. Journal of Automated Reasoning, (29):389-411, 2002.