Results 1 
2 of
2
Understanding Mathematical Discourse
 Dialogue. Amsterdam University
, 1999
"... Discourse Understanding is hard. This seems to be especially true for mathematical discourse, that is proofs. Restricting discourse to mathematical discourse allow us, however, to study the subject matter in its purest form. This domain of discourse is rich and welldefined, highly structured, offers ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Discourse Understanding is hard. This seems to be especially true for mathematical discourse, that is proofs. Restricting discourse to mathematical discourse allow us, however, to study the subject matter in its purest form. This domain of discourse is rich and welldefined, highly structured, offers a welldefined set of discourse relations and forces/allows us to apply mathematical reasoning. We give a brief discussion on selected linguistic phenomena of mathematical discourse, and an analysis from the mathematician’s point of view. Requirements for a theory of discourse representation are given, followed by a discussion of proofs plans that provide necessary context and structure. A large part of semantics construction is defined in terms of proof plan recognition and instantiation by matching and attaching. 1
A Note on "How to Write a Proof"
, 1996
"... We believe that mechanical checking of reallife proofs can become practical and therefore we use Mizar  a proof checking system for proofs written in a style of traditional mathematics. In the beginning of 1994 we came across a copy of L. Lamport's [8] paper in which "a method for writing proofs ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We believe that mechanical checking of reallife proofs can become practical and therefore we use Mizar  a proof checking system for proofs written in a style of traditional mathematics. In the beginning of 1994 we came across a copy of L. Lamport's [8] paper in which "a method for writing proofs is proposed that makes it much harder to prove things that are not true." For Mizar users the issue of How to Write a Proof? is an important one, as Mizar is a proof checker and not an automated prover. We have tested Mizar fitness for writing structured proofs in Lamport's style by rewriting his proof of the irrationality of p 2 into Mizar. It was not surprising to notice that formatting conventions help in presenting and reading proofs. However, such conventions do not, as they cannot, guarantee the correctness of the written proof, our little test being a case in point. We advocate development and employment of mechanical checkers for proofs.