Advertisement

An Overview of a Formal Framework for Managing Mathematics

  • William M. Farmer
  • Martin v. Mohrenschildt
Article

Abstract

Mathematics is a process of creating, exploring, and connecting mathematical models. This paper presents an overview of a formal framework for managing the mathematics process as well as the mathematical knowledge produced by the process. The central idea of the framework is the notion of a biform theory which is simultaneously an axiomatic theory and an algorithmic theory. Representing a collection of mathematical models, a biform theory provides a formal context for both deduction and computation. The framework includes facilities for deriving theorems via a mixture of deduction and computation, constructing sound deduction and computation rules, and developing networks of biform theories linked by interpretations. The framework is not tied to a specific underlying logic; indeed, it is intended to be used with several background logics simultaneously. Many of the ideas and mechanisms used in the framework are inspired by the IMPS Interactive Mathematical Proof System and the Axiom computer algebra system.

mechanized mathematics computer theorem proving computer algebra axiomatic method little theories method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    A. Armando and D. Zini, Interfacing computer algebra and deduction systems, in: Symbolic Computation and Automated Reasoning, eds. M. Kerber and M. Kohlhase (A.K. Peters, 2001) pp. 49–64.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    B. Barros et al., The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual, Version 6.1 (1997), available at ftp://ftp.inria.fr/INRIA/coq/V6.1/doc/Reference-Manual.dvi.gz.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    C. Benzmüller, M. Jamnik, M. Kerber and V. Sorge, An agent-oriented approach to reasoning, in: CALCULEMUS-2001, eds. S. Linton and R. Sebastiani (2001) pp. 48–63.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Bertoli, J. Calmet, F. Giunchiglia and K. Homann, Specification and integration of theorem provers and computer algebra systems, Fundamenta Informaticae 39 (1999).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    R. Boyer and J. Moore, A Computational Logic Handbook (Academic Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore, Integrating decision procedures into heuristic theorem provers: A case study of linear arithmetic, Technical Report ICSCA-CMP-44, Institute for Computing Science, University of Texas at Austin (1985).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    B. Buchberger, Symbolic computation: Computer algebra and logic, in: Frontiers of Combining Systems, eds. F. Baader and K.U. Schulz, Applied Logic Series (Kluwer Academic, 1996) pp. 193–220.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Buchberger, C. Dupré, T. Jebelean, F. Kriftner, K. Nakagawa, D. Văsaru and W. Windsteiger, The TH∃OREM∀ Project: A progress report, in: Symbolic Computation and Automated Reasoning, eds. M. Kerber and M. Kohlhase (A.K. Peters, 2001) pp. 98–113.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Calculemus Project, Calculemus Project: Systems for Integrated Computation and Deduction, Web site at http://www.mathweb.org/calculemus/.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B.W. Char, K.O. Geddes, G.H. Gonnet, B.L. Leong, M.B. Monagan and S.M. Watt, Maple V Language Reference Manual (Springer, Berlin, 1991).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Church, A formulation of the simple theory of types, Journal of Symbolic Logic 5 (1940) 56–68.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    E. Clarke and X. Zhao, Analytica – a theorem prover in mathematica, in: Automated Deduction – CADE-11, ed. D. Kapur, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 607 (Springer, Berlin, 1992) pp. 761–765.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Computer Algebra and Automated Reasoning (CAAP) Project, University of St. Andrews, Web site at http://www-theory.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/info/caar.html.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    R.L. Constable, S.F. Allen, H.M. Bromley, W.R. Cleaveland, J.F. Cremer, R.W. Harper, D.J. Howe, T.B. Knoblock, N.P. Mendler, P. Panangaden, J.T. Sasaki and S.F. Smith, Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Proof Development System (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    D. Craigen, S. Kromodimoeljo, I. Meisels, B. Pase and M. Saaltink, EVES: An overview, Technical Report CP–91–5402–43, ORA Corporation (1991).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Dunstan, H. Gottliebsen, T. Kelsey and U. Martin, Computer algebra meets automated theorem proving: A Maple-PVS interface, in: CALCULEMUS-2001, eds. S. Linton and R. Sebastiani (2001) pp. 107–119.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    H.B. Enderton, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic (Academic Press, New York, 1972).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    W.M. Farmer, A partial functions version of Church's simple theory of types, Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (1990) 1269–1291.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    W.M. Farmer, A simple type theory with partial functions and subtypes, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 64 (1993) 211–240.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    W.M. Farmer, Theory interpretation in simple type theory, in: Higher-Order Algebra, Logic, and Term Rewriting, ed. J.H. et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 816 (Springer, Berlin, 1994) pp. 96–123.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    W.M. Farmer, The interactive mathematics laboratory, in: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Small College Computing Symposium (SCCS' 98) (1998) pp. 84–94.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    W.M. Farmer, An infrastructure for intertheory reasoning, in: Automated Deduction – CADE-17, ed. D. McAllester, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1831 (Springer, Berlin, 2000) pp. 115–131.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    W.M. Farmer, A proposal for the development of an interactive mathematics laboratory for mathematics education, in: CADE-17 Workshop on Deduction Systems forMathematics Education, ed. E. Melis (2000) pp. 20–25.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    W.M. Farmer, STMM: A set theory for mechanized mathematics, Journal of Automated Reasoning 26 (2001) 269–289.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    W.M. Farmer and J.D. Guttman: A set theory with support for partial functions, Studia Logica 66 (2000) 59–78.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    W.M. Farmer, J.D. Guttman, M.E. Nadel and F.J. Thayer, Proof script pragmatics in IMPS, in: Automated Deduction – CADE-12, ed. A. Bundy, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 814 (Springer, Berlin, 1994) pp. 356–370.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    W.M. Farmer, J.D. Guttman and F.J. Thayer, Little theories, in: Automated Deduction – CADE-11, ed. D. Kapur, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 607 (Springer, Berlin, 1992) pp. 567–581.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    W.M. Farmer, J.D. Guttman and F.J. Thayer, IMPS: An interactive mathematical proof system, Journal of Automated Reasoning 11 (1993) 213–248.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    W.M. Farmer, J.D. Guttman and F.J. Thayer, The IMPS User's Manual, Technical Report M-93B138, The MITRE Corporation (1993), available at http://imps.mcmaster.ca/.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    W.M. Farmer, J.D. Guttman and F.J. Thayer, Contexts in mathematical reasoning and computation, Journal of Symbolic Computation 19 (1995) 201–216.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    W.M. Farmer, J.D. Guttman and F.J. Thayer Fábrega, IMPS: An updated system description, in: Automated Deduction – CADE-13, eds. M. McRobbie and J. Slaney, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1104 (Springer, Berlin, 1996) pp. 298–302.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    W.M. Farmer and M. v. Mohrenschildt, Transformers for symbolic computation and formal deduction, in: CADE-17 Workshop on the Role of Automated Deduction in Mathematics, eds. S. Colton, U. Martin and V. Sorge (2000) pp. 36–45.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    W.M. Farmer and M. v. Mohrenschildt, A detailed description of a formal framework for managing mathematics, Technical report, McMaster University (2002), available at http://imps.mcmaster.ca/mathscheme/.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    F. Giunchiglia, P. Pecchiari and C. Talcott, Reasoning theories, Journal of Automated Reasoning 26 (2001) 291–331.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    M. Gordon, R. Milner and C.P. Wadsworth, Edinburgh LCF : A Mechanised Logic of Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 78 (Springer, Berlin, 1979).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    M.J.C. Gordon and T.F. Melham, Introduction to HOL: A Theorem Proving Environment for Higher Order Logic (Cambridge University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    J. Harrison and L. Théry, A skeptic's approach to combining HOL and Maple, Journal of Automated Reasoning 21 (1998) 279–294.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    K. Homann and J. Calmet, Combining theorem proving and symbolic mathematical computing, in: Integrating Symbolic Mathematical Computation and Artificial Intelligence, eds. J. Calmet and J.A. Campbell, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 958 (Springer, Berlin, 1995).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    K. Homann and J. Calmet, Structures for symbolic mathematical reasoning and computation, in: DISCO'96: Design and Implementation of Symbolic Computation Systems, ed. J. Calmet, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1128 (Springer, Berlin, 1996) pp. 216–227.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    R.D. Jenks and R.S. Sutor, Axiom: The Scientific Computation System (Springer, Berlin, 1992).Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    M. Kerber, M. Kohlhase and V. Sorge, Integrating computer algebra into proof planning, Journal of Automated Reasoning 21 (1998) 327–355.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    Macsyma, Macsyma Mathematics and System Reference Manual (Macsyma Inc., 1996).Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    W. McCune, OTTER 2.0, in: 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction, ed. M.E. Stickel, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 449 (Springer, Berlin, 1990) pp. 663–664.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    L.G. Monk, Inference rules using local contexts, Journal of Automated Reasoning 4 (1988) 445–462.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    R.P. Nederpelt, J.H. Geuvers and R.C.D. Vrijer (eds.), Selected Papers on Automath, Studies in Logic and The Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 133 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1994).Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    S. Owre, S. Rajan, J.M. Rushby, N. Shankar and M. Srivas, PVS: Combining specification, proof checking, and model checking, in: Computer Aided Verification: 8th International Conference, CAV' 96, eds. R. Alur and T.A. Henzinger, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1102 (Springer, Berlin, 1996) pp. 411–414.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    L.C. Paulson, Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 828 (Springer, Berlin, 1994).Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    F. Pfenning, Logical Frameworks, Web site at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/fp/www/lfs.html.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    E. Poll and S. Thompson, Adding the axioms to Axiom: Towards a system of automated reasoning in Aldor, Technical Report 6–9, Computing Laboratory, University of Kent (1998).Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    P. Rudnicki, An overview of the MIZAR project, Technical report, Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta (1992).Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    J.R. Shoenfield, Mathematical Logic (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1967).Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Theorema Project, Theorema Project: Computer supported mathematical theorem proving, research institute for symbolic computation (RISC), Web site at http://www.theorema.org/.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    S.M. Watt, P.A. Broadbery, P. Iglio, S.C. Morrison, J.M. Steinbach and R.S. Sutor, Aldor Compiler User Guide (2001), available at http://www.aldor.org/docs/HTML/.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    S. Wolfram, Mathematica: A System for Doing Mathematics by Computer (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • William M. Farmer
    • 1
  • Martin v. Mohrenschildt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing and SoftwareMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations