A Logical Framework for Developing and Mechanizing Set Theories

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9706)


We describe a framework for formalizing mathematics which is based on the usual set theoretical foundations of mathematics. Its most important feature is that it reflects real mathematical practice in making an extensive use of statically defined abstract set terms, in the same way they are used in ordinary mathematical discourse. We also show how large portions of scientifically applicable mathematics can be developed in this framework in a straightforward way, using just rather weak set theories which are predicatively acceptable. The key property of those theories is that every object which is used in it is defined by some closed term of the theory. This allows for a very concrete, computationally-oriented interpretation. However, the development is not committed to such interpretation, and can easily be extended for handling stronger set theories, including ZFC itself.


Ordinary Mathematical Discourse Actual Mathematical Practice Predicative Theories Rudimentary Functions Mathematical Knowledge Management (MKM) 
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.


  1. 1.
    Avron, A.: Transitive closure and the mechanization of mathematics. In: Kamareddine, F.D. (ed.) Thirty Five Years of Automating Mathematics. Applied Logic Series, pp. 149–171. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Avron, A.: Formalizing set theory as it is actually used. In: Asperti, A., Bancerek, G., Trybulec, A. (eds.) MKM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3119, pp. 32–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avron, A.: A framework for formalizing set theories based on the use of static set terms. In: Avron, A., Dershowitz, N., Rabinovich, A. (eds.) Pillars of Computer Science. LNCS, vol. 4800, pp. 87–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avron, A.: A new approach to predicative set theory. In: Schindler, R. (ed.) Ways of Proof Theory. Onto Series in Mathematical Logic, pp. 31–63. onto Verlag (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avron, A., Cohen, L.: Formalizing scientifically applicable mathematics in a definitional framework. J. Formalized Reasoning 9(1), 53–70 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Avron, A., Cohen, L.: A minimal framework for applicable mathematics (to appear, 2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cantone, D., Omodeo, E., Policriti, A.: Set Theory for Computing: From Decision Procedures to Declarative Programming With Sets. Springer, New York (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Devlin, K.: Constructibility. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1984)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feferman, S.: Weyl vindicated: Das kontinuum 70 years later. Termi e prospettive della logica e della filosofia della scienza contemporanee, vol. 1 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fraenkel, A.A., Bar-Hillel, Y., Levy, A.: Foundations of Set Theory. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1973)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gandy, R.O.: Set-theoretic functions for elementary syntax. In: Proceedings of the Symposium in Pure Mathematics, vol. 13, pp. 103–126 (1974)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kieffer, S., Avigad, J., Friedman, H.: A language for mathematical language management. Stud. Logic Grammar Rhetoric 18, 51–66 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Levy, A.: Basic Set Theory. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations