Banishing Ultrafilters from Our Consciousness

  • Domenico Cantone
  • Eugenio G. Omodeo
  • Alberto Policriti
Chapter
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 10)

Abstract

The way in which Martin Davis conceived the first chapter of his book “Applied nonstandard analysis ” is a brilliant example of information hiding as a guiding principle for the design of widely applicable constructions and methods of proof. We discuss here a common trait that we see between that book and another writing of the year 1977, “Metamathematical extensibility for theorem provers and proof-checkers”, which Martin coauthored with Jacob T. Schwartz. To tie the said part of Martin’s study on nonstandard analysis to proof technology, we undertake a verification, by means of a proof-checker based on set theory, of key results of the non-standard approach to analysis.

Keywords

Proof checking Proof engineering Nonstandard analysis Foundations of infinitesimal calculus 

References

  1. 1.
    Anastasio, S. (Coordinating Editor) (2015). In memory of Jacob Schwartz. Notices of the AMS, 473–490.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballantyne, A. M. (1991). The Metatheorist: Automatic proofs of theorems in analysis using non-standard techniques, Part II. In R. S. Boyer (Ed.), Automated reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe (pp. 61–75). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballantyne, A. M., & Bledsoe, W. W. (1977). Automatic proofs of theorems in analysis using nonstandard techniques. Journal of the ACM, 24(3), 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blass, A. (1978). Book reviews of Applied nonstandard analysis, by Martin Davis, Introduction to the theory of infinitesimals, by K. D. Stroyan and W. A. J. Luxemburg, and Foundations of infinitesimal calculus, by H. Jerome Keisler. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 84(1):34–41, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bledsoe, W. W. (1977). Non-resolution theorem proving. Artificial Intelligence, 9(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boldo, S., Lelay, C., & Melquiond, G. (2015). Formalization of real analysis: A survey of proof assistants and libraries. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 38 pp.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burstall, R., & Goguen, J. (1977). Putting theories together to make specifications. In R. Reddy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1045–1058). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cantone, D., Omodeo, E. G., & Policriti, A. (2001). Set Theory for Computing. From Decision Procedures to Declarative Programming with Sets. Monographs in Computer Science. Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ceterchi, R., Omodeo, E. G., & Tomescu, A. I. (2014). The representation of Boolean algebras in the spotlight of a proof checker. In L. Giordano, V. Gliozzi, & G. L. Pozzato, (Eds.), CILC 2014: Italian Conference on Computational Logic, volume 1195 http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1195/, ISSN 1613-0073, pp. 287–301. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, July 2014.
  10. 10.
    Chinlund, T. J., Davis, M., Hinman, P. G., & McIlroy, M. D. (1964). Theorem-proving by matching. Technical report, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated, Murray Hill, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen, P. J. (1966). Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis. Mathematics Lecture Note Series. Reading, Massachusetts: W. A. Benjamin, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis, M. (1960). A program for Presburger’s algorithm. Summaries of talks presented at the Summer Institute of Symbolic Logic in 1957 at Cornell University (vol. 2, pp. 215–223). Princeton, NJ. Communications Research Division, Institute for Defense Analyses. Reprinted as “A computer program for Presburger’s algorithm” in [36, pp. 41–48].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davis, M. (1963). Eliminating the irrelevant from mechanical proofs. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics (vol. 15, pp. 15–30). Providence, RI: AMS. Reprinted in [36, pp. 315–330]; Russian transl. in Kiberneticheskiy sbornik. Novaya seriya, 7, 1970, pp. 160–179.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davis, M. (1977). Applied nonstandard analysis. Wiley. Reprinted with corrections Dover, 2005. Russian translation, Izdatel’stvo Mir, Moscow 1980. Japanese translation 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, M. (2001). The early history of automated deduction. In J. A. Robinson & A Voronkov, (Eds.), Handbook of Automated Reasoning (pp. 3–15). Elsevier and MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davis, M. (2013). Jack Schwartz meets Karl Marx. In [22, pp. 23–37].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davis, M., & Fechter, R. (1991). A free variable version of the first-order predicate calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1(4), 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis, M., & Hersh, R. (1972). Nonstandard analysis. Scientific American, 226, 78–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1958). Feasible computational methods in the propositional calculus. Technical report, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Research Division, Troy, New York.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1960). A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the ACM, 7(3):201–215. Reprinted in [36, pp. 125–139].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Davis, M., & Schonberg, E. (2011). Jacob Theodore Schwartz 1930–2009. Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences,19 pp.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis, M., & Schonberg, E. (Eds.). (2013). From Linear Operators to Computational Biology: Essays in Memory of Jacob T. Schwartz. Springer.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, M. & Schwartz, J. T. (1977). Correct-program technology/Extensibility of verifiers—Two papers on Program Verification with Appendix of Edith Deak. Technical Report No. NSO-12, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, M. & Schwartz, J. T. (1979). Metamathematical extensibility for theorem verifiers and proof-checkers. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 5, 217–230. Also in [25, pp. 120–146].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Davis, M., Logemann, G., & Loveland, D. W. (1962). A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the Association for Computing. Machinery, 5(7), 394–397.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fleuriot, J. D. (2000). On the mechanization of real analysis in Isabelle/HOL. In M. Aagaard & J. Harrison, (Eds.), Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, 13th International Conference, TPHOLs 2000, Portland, Oregon, USA, 14–18 August 2000, Proceedings, volume 1869 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 145–161). Springer.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gamboa, R., & Kaufmann, M. (2001). Nonstandard analysis in ACL2. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 27(4), 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keisler, H. J. (1976). Foundations of infinitesimal calcuus. Boston, MA: Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Omodeo, E. G. (1982). The Linked Conjunct method for automatic deduction and related search techniques. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 8, 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Omodeo, E. G. (2012). The Ref proof-checker and its “common shared scenario”. In M. Davis & E. Schonberg, (Eds.), From Linear Operators to Computational Biology: Essays in Memory of Jacob T. Schwartz (pp. 121–131). Springer.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Omodeo, E. G., & Schwartz, J. T. (2002). A ‘Theory’ mechanism for a proof-verifier based on first-order set theory. In A. Kakas & F. Sadri, (Eds.), Computational logic: Logic programming and beyond—Essays in honour of Bob Kowalski, part II (vol. 2408, pp. 214–230). Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Omodeo, E. G., & Tomescu, A. I. (2008). Using ÆtnaNova to formally prove that the Davis-Putnam satisfiability test is correct. Le Matematiche, 63(1), 85–105.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Policriti, A. (1988). Decision procedures for elementary sublanguages of set theory. IX. Unsolvability of the decision problem for a restricted class of the \(\Delta _0\)-formulas in set theory. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 41(2), 221–251.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robinson, J. A. (1967). Review: Martin Davis, Eliminating the irrelevant from mechanical proofs. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 32(1), 118–119.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schwartz, J. T., Cantone, D., & Omodeo, E. G. (2011). Computational logic and set theory—Applying formalized logic to analysis. Springer.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Siekmann, J., & Wrightson, G. (Eds.). (1983). Automation of reasoning 1: Classical papers on computational logic 1957–1966. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Turing, A. M. (1939). Systems of logic based on ordinals. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2(45), 161–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weyhrauch, R. W. (1977). A users manual for FOL. Technical Report MEMO AIM-235.1, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yarmush, D. L. (1976). The Linked Conjunct and other algorithms for mechanical theorem-proving. Technical Report IMM 412, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico Cantone
    • 1
  • Eugenio G. Omodeo
    • 2
  • Alberto Policriti
    • 3
  1. 1.DMI, Università di CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.DMG/DMI, Università di TriesteTriesteItaly
  3. 3.DMIF, Università di UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations