Abstract
We provide a syntax and a derivation system fora formal language of mathematics called Weak Type Theory (WTT). We give the metatheory of WTT and a number of illustrative examples.WTT is a refinement of de Bruijn's Mathematical Vernacular (MV) and hence:
– WTT is faithful to the mathematician's language yet isformal and avoids ambiguities.
– WTT is close to the usualway in which mathematicians express themselves in writing.
– WTT has a syntaxbased on linguistic categories instead of set/type theoretic constructs.
More so than MV however, WTT has a precise abstractsyntax whose derivation rules resemble those of modern typetheory enabling us to establish important desirable properties of WTT such as strong normalisation, decidability of type checking andsubject reduction. The derivation system allows one to establish thata book written in WTT is well-formed following the syntax ofWTT, and has great resemblance with ordinary mathematics books.
WTT (like MV) is weak as regardscorrectness: the rules of WTT only concern linguisticcorrectness, its types are purely linguistic sothat the formal translation into WTT is satisfactory as areadable, well-organized text. In WTT, logico-mathematical aspects of truth are disregarded. This separates concerns and means that WTT
– can be easily understood by either a mathematician, a logician or a computerscientist, and
– acts as an intermediary between thelanguage of mathematicians and that of logicians.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bancerek, G., 2003, “On the structure of Mizar types,” in Mathematics, Logic and Computation,H. Geuvers and F. Kamareddine, eds., ENTCS 85.7.
Barras, B. et al., 1999, “The Coq proof assistant, reference manual,” INRIA.
Benzmüller, C. and Kohlhase, M., 1997, “MEGA: Towards a mathematical assistent,” pp. 252–255 in Proceedings of Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-14), W. McCune, ed., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1249, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Buchberger, B. et al., 1997, “A survey of the Theorema project,” pp. 384–391 in Proceedings of ISSAC'97 (International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation),Maui,Hawai (1997).
Constable, R.L. et al., 1986, Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
de Bruijn, N.G., 1970, “The mathematical language Automath, its usage and some of its extensions,” pp. 29–16 in Proceedings of Symposium on Automatic Demonstration, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 125, Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Also pp. 73–100 in Selected Papers on Automath,R.P. Nederpelt et al., eds., Amsterdam: North-Holland.
de Bruijn, N.G., 1979, “Grammatica van WOT,” Euclides 55, 66–72.
de Bruijn, N.G., 1990, Reflections on Automath, Eindhoven University of Technology. Also pp. 201– 228 in Selected Papers on Automath, R.P. Nederpelt et al., eds., Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dowek, G., 1990a, “Naming and scoping in a mathematical vernacular,” Technical Report 1283, Rocquencourt, France: INRIA (Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automa-tique.
Dowek, G., 1990b, “A proof synthesis algorithm for a mathematical vernacular in a restriction of the calculus of constructions,” in Informal Proceedings of the First Workshop on Logical Frameworks, Antibes, France.
Heijenoort, J. van, ed., 1967, From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879– 1931, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kamareddine, F., Laan, L., and Nederpelt, R., 2002, “Types in logic and mathematics before 1940,” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 8, 185–245.
MacLane, S., 1972, Categories for the Working Mathematician, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nederpelt, R.P., Geuvers, J.H., and de Vrijer, R.C., 1994, Selected Papers on Automath, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Nipkow, T., Paulson, L., and Wenzel, M., 2002, Isabelle/HOL, A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, Lecture Notes on Computer Science, Vol. 2283, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Owre, S., Shankar, N., and Rushby, J.M., 1992, “PVS: A prototype verification system,” pp. 748–752 in Proceedings of the Internal Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE), D. Kapur, ed., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 607, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ranta, A., 2001, “The GF language: Syntax and type system,” Technical Report, Chalmers, http://www.cs.chlamers.se/~aarne/GF.
Rudnicki, P., 1992, “An overview of the MIZAR project,” pp. 311–332 in Informal Proceedings of the 1992 Workshop on Types for Proofs and Programs, Båstad, B. Nordström, K. Petterson, and G. Plotkin, eds.
Severi, P. and Poll, E., 1994, “Pure type systems with definitions,” pp. 316–328 in Proceedings of LFCS'94, A. Nerode and Y. Matiyasevich, eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 813, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Wenzel, M. and Wiedijk, F., 2002, “A comparison of Mizar and Isar,” Automated Reasoning 29, 389–411.
Whitehead, A. and Russell, B., 19101, 19272, Principia Mathematica, Vols. I, II, III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zermelo, E., 1908, “Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre,” Mathematische Annalen 65, 261–281.
Zucker, J., 1975,” Formalization of classical mathematics in Automath,” pp. 135–145 in Colloque Internationale de Logique, Clermont-Ferrand, France, CNRS, Informal proceedings.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kamareddine, F., Nederpelt, R. A Refinement of de Bruijn's Formal Language of Mathematics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 287–340 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JLLI.0000028393.47593.b8
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JLLI.0000028393.47593.b8