Visual Theorem Proving with the Incredible Proof Machine

  • Joachim BreitnerEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9807)


The Incredible Proof Machine is an easy and fun to use program to conduct formal proofs. It employs a novel, intuitive proof representation based on port graphs, which is akin to, but even more natural than, natural deduction. In particular, we describe a way to determine the scope of local assumptions and variables implicitly. Our practical classroom experience backs these claims.


Inference Rule Predicate Logic Natural Deduction Proof Representation Elimination Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Denis Lohner, Richard Molitor, Martin Mohr and Nicole Rauch for their contributions to the Incredible Proof Machine, and Andreas Lochbihler and Sebastian Ritterbusch for helpful comments on a draft of this paper. Furthermore, I thank the anonymous referees for the encouraging review and the list of feature requests.


  1. 1.
    Alves, S., Fernández, M., Mackie, I.: A new graphical calculus of proofs. In: TERMGRAPH. EPTCS, vol. 48 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrei, O., Kirchner, H.: A rewriting calculus for multigraphs with ports. ENTCS 219, 67–82 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H. (eds.): Verification of Object-Oriented Software. The KeY Approach. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4334. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benkmann, M.: Visualization of natural deduction as a game of dominoes.
  5. 5.
    Breitner, J.: Incredible proof machine. Conversation with Sebastian Ritterbusch, Modellansatz Podcast, Episode 78, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2016).
  6. 6.
    Breitner, J., Lohner, D.: The meta theory of the incredible proof machine. Arch. Form. Proofs (2016). Formal proof development.
  7. 7.
    Coq Development Team. The Coq proof assistant reference manual. LogiCal Project (2004). version 8.0.
  8. 8.
    Johnson, G.W.: LabVIEW Graphical Programming. McGraw-Hill, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) USAB 2008. LNCS, vol. 5298, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lerner, S., Foster, S.R., Griswold, W.G.: Polymorphic blocks: formalism-inspired UI for structured connectors. In: CHI. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Materzok, M.: Easyprove: a tool for teaching precise reasoning. In: TTL. Université de Rennes 1 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell, J.C., Plotkin, G.D.: Abstract types have existential type. TOPLAS 10(3), 470–502 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nipkow, T.: Functional unification of higher-order patterns. In: LICS (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C., Wenzel, M.: Isabelle/HOL. LNCS, vol. 2283. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selier, T.: A Propositionlogic-, naturaldeduction-proof app(lication). Bachelor’s thesis, Utrecht University (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weirich, S., Yorgey, B.A., Sheard, T.: Binders unbound. In: ICFP. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang, E.Z.: Logitext.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations