Results 1  10
of
41
Grammatical Framework: A TypeTheoretical Grammar Formalism
, 2003
"... Grammatical Framework (GF) is a specialpurpose functional language for defining grammars. It uses a Logical Framework (LF) for a description of abstract syntax, and adds to this a notation for defining concrete syntax. GF grammars themselves are purely declarative, but can be used both for lineariz ..."
Abstract

Cited by 72 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Grammatical Framework (GF) is a specialpurpose functional language for defining grammars. It uses a Logical Framework (LF) for a description of abstract syntax, and adds to this a notation for defining concrete syntax. GF grammars themselves are purely declarative, but can be used both for linearizing syntax trees and parsing strings. GF can describe both formal and natural languages. The key notion of this description is a grammatical object, which is not just a string, but a record that contains all information on inflection and inherent grammatical features such as number and gender in natural languages, or precedence in formal languages. Grammatical objects have a type system, which helps to eliminate runtime errors in language processing. In the same way as an LF, GF uses...
MBase: Representing Knowledge and Context for the Integration of Mathematical Software Systems
, 2000
"... In this article we describe the data model of the MBase system, a webbased, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 41 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this article we describe the data model of the MBase system, a webbased,
Flexible encoding of mathematics on the computer
 In MKM 2004, volume 3119 of LNCS
, 2004
"... Abstract. This paper reports on refinements and extensions to the MathLang framework that add substantial support for natural language text. We show how the extended framework supports multiple views of mathematical texts, including natural language views using the exact text that the mathematician ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (12 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. This paper reports on refinements and extensions to the MathLang framework that add substantial support for natural language text. We show how the extended framework supports multiple views of mathematical texts, including natural language views using the exact text that the mathematician wants to use. Thus, MathLang now supports the ability to capture the essential mathematical structure of mathematics written using natural language text. We show examples of how arbitrary mathematical text can be encoded in MathLang without needing to change any of the words or symbols of the texts or their order. In particular, we show the encoding of a theorem and its proof that has been used by Wiedijk for comparing many theorem prover representations of mathematics, namely the irrationality of √ 2 (originally due to Pythagoras). We encode a 1960 version by Hardy and Wright, and a more recent version by Barendregt. 1 On the way to a mathematical vernacular for computers Mathematicians now use computer software for a variety of tasks: typing mathematical texts, performing calculation, analyzing theories, verifying proofs. Software tools like
Verbalization of highlevel formal proofs
 In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, 1999
"... We propose a new approach to text generation from formal proofs that exploits the highlevel and interactive features of a tacticstyle theorem prover. The design of our system is based on communication conventions identified in a corpus of texts. We show how to use dialogue with the theorem prover ..."
Abstract

Cited by 18 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a new approach to text generation from formal proofs that exploits the highlevel and interactive features of a tacticstyle theorem prover. The design of our system is based on communication conventions identified in a corpus of texts. We show how to use dialogue with the theorem prover to obtain information that is required for communication but is not explicitly used in reasoning.
Toward an objectoriented structure for mathematical text
 MATHEMATICAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, 4TH INT’L CONF., PROCEEDINGS. VOLUME 3863 OF LECTURE NOTES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 2006
"... Computerizing mathematical texts to allow software access to some or all of the texts ’ semantic content is a long and tedious process that currently requires much expertise. We believe it is useful to support computerization that adds some structural and semantic information, but does not require j ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (11 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Computerizing mathematical texts to allow software access to some or all of the texts ’ semantic content is a long and tedious process that currently requires much expertise. We believe it is useful to support computerization that adds some structural and semantic information, but does not require jumping directly from the wordprocessing level (e.g., L ATEX) to full formalization (e.g., Mizar, Coq, etc.). Although some existing mathematical languages are aimed at this middle ground (e.g., MathML, OpenMath, OMDoc), we believe they miss features needed to capture some important aspects of mathematical texts, especially the portion written with natural language. For this reason, we have been developing MathLang, a language for representing mathematical texts that has weak type checking and support for the special mathematical use of natural language. MathLang is currently aimed at only capturing the essential grammatical and binding structure of mathematical text without requiring full formalization. The development of MathLang is directly driven by experience encoding real mathematical texts. Based on this experience, this paper presents the changes that yield our latest version of MathLang. We have restructured and simplified the core of the language, replaced our old notion of “context” by a new system of blocks and local scoping, and made other changes. Furthermore, we have enhanced our support for the mathematical use of nouns and adjectives with objectoriented features so that nouns now correspond to classes, and adjectives to mixins.
Assertionlevel proof representation with underspecification
, 2003
"... We propose a proof representation format for humanoriented proofs at the assertion level with underspecification. This work aims at providing a possible solution to challenging phenomena worked out in empirical studies in the DIALOG project at Saarland University. A particular challenge in this pro ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a proof representation format for humanoriented proofs at the assertion level with underspecification. This work aims at providing a possible solution to challenging phenomena worked out in empirical studies in the DIALOG project at Saarland University. A particular challenge in this project is to bridge the gap between the humanoriented proof representation format with underspecification used in the proof manager of the tutorial dialogue system and the calculus and machineoriented representation format of the domain reasoner.
Implicit Coercions in Type Systems
 In Selected Papers from the International Workshop TYPES '95
, 1995
"... . We propose a notion of pure type system with implicit coercions. In our framework, judgements are extended with a context of coercions \Delta and the application rule is modified so as to allow coercions to be left implicit. The setting supports multiple inheritance and can be applied to all type ..."
Abstract

Cited by 15 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
. We propose a notion of pure type system with implicit coercions. In our framework, judgements are extended with a context of coercions \Delta and the application rule is modified so as to allow coercions to be left implicit. The setting supports multiple inheritance and can be applied to all type theories with \Pitypes. One originality of our work is to propose a computational interpretation for implicit coercions. In this paper, we demonstrate how this interpretation allows a strict control on the logical properties of pure type systems with implicit coecions. 1 Introduction The increasing importance of mathematical software has been accompanied by a drift of mainstream mathematics towards mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics. Before mathematical software, formal systems were generally seen both by logicians and mathematicians as safe heavens into which mathematics could theoretically be embedded. With powerful mathematical software, there is now a genuine interes...
Gradual computerisation/formalisation of mathematical texts into Mizar
 From Insight to Proof: Festschrift in Honour of Andrzej Trybulec
"... Abstract. We explain in this paper the gradual computerisation process of an ordinary mathematical text into more formal versions ending with a fully formalised Mizar text. The process is part of the MathLang–Mizar project and is divided into a number of steps (called aspects). The first three aspec ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We explain in this paper the gradual computerisation process of an ordinary mathematical text into more formal versions ending with a fully formalised Mizar text. The process is part of the MathLang–Mizar project and is divided into a number of steps (called aspects). The first three aspects (CGa, TSa and DRa) are the same for any MathLang–TP project where TP is any proof checker (e.g., Mizar, Coq, Isabelle, etc). These first three aspects are theoretically formalised and implemented and provide the mathematician and/or TP user with useful tools/automation. Using TSa, the mathematician edits his mathematical text just as he would use L ATEX, but at the same time he sees the mathematical text as it appears on his paper. TSa also gives the mathematician easy editing facilities to help assign to parts of the text, grammatical and mathematical roles and to relate different parts through a number of mathematical, rethorical and structural relations. MathLang would then automatically produce CGa and DRa versions of the text, checks
A Comparison of Mizar and Isar
 J. Automated Reasoning
, 2002
"... Abstract. The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also differs in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 8 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The mathematical proof checker Mizar by Andrzej Trybulec uses a proof input language that is much more readable than the input languages of most other proof assistants. This system also differs in many other respects from most current systems. John Harrison has shown that one can have a Mizar mode on top of a tactical prover, allowing one to combine a mathematical proof language with other styles of proof checking. Currently the only fully developed Mizar mode in this style is the Isar proof language for the Isabelle theorem prover. In fact the Isar language has become the official input language to the Isabelle system, even though many users still use its lowlevel tactical part only. In this paper we compare Mizar and Isar. A small example, Euclid’s proof of the existence of infinitely many primes, is shown in both systems. We also include slightly higherlevel views of formal proof sketches. Moreover a list of differences between Mizar and Isar is presented, highlighting the strengths of both systems from the perspective of endusers. Finally, we point out some key differences of the