Results

**11 - 15**of**15**### Position paper: A real Semantic Web for mathematics deserves a real semantics

"... Abstract. Mathematical documents, and their instrumentation by computers, have rich structure at the layers of presentation, metadata and semantics, as objects in a system for formal mathematical logic. Semantic Web tools [2] support the first two of these, with little, if any, contribution to the t ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

Abstract. Mathematical documents, and their instrumentation by computers, have rich structure at the layers of presentation, metadata and semantics, as objects in a system for formal mathematical logic. Semantic Web tools [2] support the first two of these, with little, if any, contribution to the third, while Proof Assistants [17] instrument the third layer, typically with bespoke approaches to the first two. Our position is that a web of mathematical documents, definitions and proofs should be given a fully-fledged semantics in terms of the third layer. We propose a “Math-Wiki ” to harness Web 2.0 tools and techniques to the rich semantics furnished by contemporary Proof Assistants. 1 Background and state of the art We can identify four worlds of mathematical discourse available on the Web: – Traditional mathematical practice: a systematic body of knowledge, organised around documents written by experts, most often in L ATEX, to varying degrees of sophistication. The intended audience is an expert readership, and

### Russell O’Connor, Bas Spitters 1 A computer verified, monadic, functional implementation of the integral.

, 2008

"... Abstract. We provide a computer verified exact monadic functional implementation of the Riemann integral in type theory. Together with previous work by O’Connor, this may be seen as the beginning of the realization of Bishop’s vision to use constructive mathematics as a programming language for exac ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

Abstract. We provide a computer verified exact monadic functional implementation of the Riemann integral in type theory. Together with previous work by O’Connor, this may be seen as the beginning of the realization of Bishop’s vision to use constructive mathematics as a programming language for exact analysis. 1 1.

### Under consideration for publication in Math. Struct. in Comp. Science Formalizing Overlap Algebras in Matita

, 2010

"... We describe some formal topological results, formalized in Matita 1/2, presented in predicative intuitionistic logic and in terms of Overlap Algebras. Overlap Algebras are new algebraic structures designed to ease reasoning about subsets in an algebraic way within intuitionistic logic. We find that ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

We describe some formal topological results, formalized in Matita 1/2, presented in predicative intuitionistic logic and in terms of Overlap Algebras. Overlap Algebras are new algebraic structures designed to ease reasoning about subsets in an algebraic way within intuitionistic logic. We find that they also ease the formalization of formal topological results in an interactive theorem prover. Our main result is the existence of a functor between two categories of ‘generalized topological spaces’, one with points (Basic Pairs) and the other point-free (Basic Topologies). The reported formalization is part as a wider scientific collaboration with the inventor of the theory, Giovanni Sambin. His goal is to verify in what sense, and with what difficulties, his theory is ‘implementable’. We check that all intermediate constructions respect the stringent size requirements imposed by predicative logic. The formalization is quite unusual, since it has to make explicit size information that is often hidden. We found that the version of Matita used for the formalization was largely inappropriate. The formalization drove several major improvements of Matita that will be integrated in the next major release (Matita 1.0). We show some motivating examples for these improvements, taken directly from the formalization. We also describe a possibly sub-optimal solution in Matita 1/2, exploitable in other similar systems. We briefly discuss a better solution available in Matita 1.0. 1.

### Contents

"... We present rational, a Coq tactic for equational reasoning in abelian groups, commutative rings, and fields. We give an mathematical description of the method that this tactic uses, which abstracts from Coq specifics. We prove that the method that rational uses is correct, and that it is complete fo ..."

Abstract
- Add to MetaCart

We present rational, a Coq tactic for equational reasoning in abelian groups, commutative rings, and fields. We give an mathematical description of the method that this tactic uses, which abstracts from Coq specifics. We prove that the method that rational uses is correct, and that it is complete for groups and rings. Completeness means that the method succeeds in proving an equality if and only if that equality is provable from the the group/ring axioms. Finally we characterize in what way our method is incomplete for fields.