Results 1  10
of
55
A Refinement of de Bruijn’s Formal Language of Mathematics
 Journal of Logic, Language and Information
, 2004
"... Abstract. We provide a syntax and a derivation system for a formal language of mathematics called Weak Type Theory (WTT). We give the metatheory of WTT and a number of illustrative examples. WTT is a refinement of de Bruijn’s Mathematical Vernacular (MV) and hence: WTT is faithful to the mathematici ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We provide a syntax and a derivation system for a formal language of mathematics called Weak Type Theory (WTT). We give the metatheory of WTT and a number of illustrative examples. WTT is a refinement of de Bruijn’s Mathematical Vernacular (MV) and hence: WTT is faithful to the mathematician’s language yet is formal and avoids ambiguities. WTT is close to the usual way in which mathematicians express themselves in writing. ¡ WTT has a syntax based on linguistic categories instead of set/type theoretic constructs. More so than MV however, WTT has a precise abstract syntax whose derivation rules resemble those of modern type theory enabling us to establish important desirable properties of WTT such as strong normalisation, decidability of type checking and subject reduction. The derivation system allows one to establish that a book written in WTT is wellformed following the syntax of WTT, and has great resemblance with ordinary mathematics books. WTT (like MV) is weak as regards correctness: the rules of WTT only concern linguistic correctness, its types are purely linguistic so that the formal translation into WTT is satisfactory as a readable, wellorganized text. In WTT, logicomathematical aspects of truth are disregarded. This separates concerns and means that WTT can be easily understood by either a mathematician, a logician or a computer scientist. acts as an intermediary between the language of mathematicians and that of logicians.
Hierarchical Contextual Reasoning
, 2003
"... VII Zusammenfassung IX Extended Abstract XI Acknowledgements XIII I ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
VII Zusammenfassung IX Extended Abstract XI Acknowledgements XIII I
Computerizing Mathematical Text with MathLang
"... Mathematical texts can be computerized in many ways that capture differing amounts of the mathematical meaning. At one end, there is document imaging, which captures the arrangement of black marks on paper, while at the other end there are proof assistants (e.g., Mizar, Isabelle, Coq, etc.), which c ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Mathematical texts can be computerized in many ways that capture differing amounts of the mathematical meaning. At one end, there is document imaging, which captures the arrangement of black marks on paper, while at the other end there are proof assistants (e.g., Mizar, Isabelle, Coq, etc.), which capture the full mathematical meaning and have proofs expressed in a formal foundation of mathematics. In between, there are computer typesetting systems (e.g., LATEX and Presentation MathML) and semantically oriented systems (e.g., Content MathML, OpenMath, OMDoc, etc.). The MathLang project was initiated in 2000 by Fairouz Kamareddine and Joe Wells with the aim of developing an approach for computerizing mathematical texts and knowledge which is flexible enough to connect the different approaches to computerization, which allows various degrees of formalization, and which is compatible with different logical frameworks (e.g., set theory, category theory, type theory, etc.) and proof systems. The approach is embodied in a computer representation, which we call MathLang, and associated software tools, which are being developed by ongoing work. Three Ph.D. students (Manuel Maarek (2002/2007), Krzysztof Retel (since 2004), and Robert Lamar (since 2006)) and over a dozen master’s degree and undergraduate students have worked on MathLang. The project’s progress and design choices are driven by the needs for computerizing real representative mathematical texts chosen from various
Does Mathematics Need New Axioms?
 American Mathematical Monthly
, 1999
"... this article I will be looking at the leading question from the point of view of the logician, and for a substantial part of that, from the perspective of one supremely important logician: Kurt Godel. From the time of his stunning incompleteness results in 1931 to the end of his life, Godel called f ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
this article I will be looking at the leading question from the point of view of the logician, and for a substantial part of that, from the perspective of one supremely important logician: Kurt Godel. From the time of his stunning incompleteness results in 1931 to the end of his life, Godel called for the pursuit of new axioms to settle undecided arithmetical problems. And from 1947 on, with the publication of his unusual article, "What is Cantor's continuum problem?" [11], he called in addition for the pursuit of new axioms to settle Cantor's famous conjecture about the cardinal number of the continuum. In both cases, he pointed primarily to schemes of higher infinity in set theory as the direction in which to seek these new principles. Logicians have learned a great deal in recent years that is relevant to Godel's program, but there is considerable disagreement about what conclusions to draw from their results. I'm far from unbiased in this respect, and you'll see how I come out on these matters by the end of this essay, but I will try to give you a fair presentation of other positions along the way so you can decide for yourself which you favor.
Types in logic and mathematics before 1940
 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
, 2002
"... Abstract. In this article, we study the prehistory of type theory up to 1910 and its development between Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica ([71], 1910–1912) and Church’s simply typed λcalculus of 1940. We first argue that the concept of types has always been present in mathematics, thou ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. In this article, we study the prehistory of type theory up to 1910 and its development between Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica ([71], 1910–1912) and Church’s simply typed λcalculus of 1940. We first argue that the concept of types has always been present in mathematics, though nobody was incorporating them explicitly as such, before the end of the 19th century. Then we proceed by describing how the logical paradoxes entered the formal systems of Frege, Cantor and Peano concentrating on Frege’s Grundgesetze der Arithmetik for which Russell applied his famous paradox 1 and this led him to introduce the first theory of types, the Ramified Type Theory (rtt). We present rtt formally using the modern notation for type theory and we discuss how Ramsey, Hilbert and Ackermann removed the orders from rtt leading to the simple theory of types stt. We present stt and Church’s own simply typed λcalculus (λ→C 2) and we finish by comparing rtt, stt and λ→C. §1. Introduction. Nowadays, type theory has many applications and is used in many different disciplines. Even within logic and mathematics, there are many different type systems. They serve several purposes, and are formulated in various ways. But, before 1903 when Russell first introduced
An Equational ReEngineering of Set Theories
 Automated Deduction in Classical and NonClassical Logics, LNCS 1761 (LNAI
, 1998
"... New successes in dealing with set theories by means of stateoftheart theoremprovers may ensue from terse and concise axiomatizations, such as can be moulded in the framework of the (fully equational) TarskiGivant map calculus. In this paper we carry out this task in detail, setting the ground fo ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
New successes in dealing with set theories by means of stateoftheart theoremprovers may ensue from terse and concise axiomatizations, such as can be moulded in the framework of the (fully equational) TarskiGivant map calculus. In this paper we carry out this task in detail, setting the ground for a number of experiments. Key words: Set theory, relation algebras, firstorder theoremproving, algebraic logic. 1 Introduction Like other mature fields of mathematics, Set Theory deserves sustained efforts that bring to light richer and richer decidable fragments of it [5], general inference rules for reasoning in it [23, 2], effective proof strategies based on its domainknowledge, and so forth. Advances in this specialized area of automated reasoning tend, in spite of their steadiness, to be slow compared to the overall progress in the field. Many experiments with set theories have hence been carried out with standard theoremproving systems. Still today such experiments pose consider...
Ibn Sīnā on analysis: 1. Proof search. Or: Abstract State Machines as a tool for history of logic
"... and I have removed some personal references. The 11th century ArabicPersian logician Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) in section 9.6 of his book Qiyās gives what appears to be a proof search algorithm for syllogisms. We confirm that it is indeed a proof search State Machine from Ibn Sīnā’s text. The paper also ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
and I have removed some personal references. The 11th century ArabicPersian logician Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) in section 9.6 of his book Qiyās gives what appears to be a proof search algorithm for syllogisms. We confirm that it is indeed a proof search State Machine from Ibn Sīnā’s text. The paper also contains a translation of the passage from Ibn Sina’s Arabic, and some notes on the text and translation. 1
Generalized and Customizable Sets in R
"... This introduction to the R package sets is a (slightly) modified version of Meyer and Hornik (2009a), published in the Journal of Statistical Software. We present data structures and algorithms for sets and some generalizations thereof (fuzzy sets, multisets, and fuzzy multisets) available for R thr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This introduction to the R package sets is a (slightly) modified version of Meyer and Hornik (2009a), published in the Journal of Statistical Software. We present data structures and algorithms for sets and some generalizations thereof (fuzzy sets, multisets, and fuzzy multisets) available for R through the sets package. Fuzzy (multi)sets are based on dynamically bound fuzzy logic families. Further extensions include userdefinable iterators and matching functions. Keywords:˜R, set, fuzzy logic, multiset, fuzzy set. 1.
ΩMKRP: A Proof Development Environment
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH CADE
, 1994
"... In the following we describe the basic ideas underlying\Omega\Gamma mkrp, an interactive proof development environment [6]. The requirements for this system were derived from our experiences in proving an interrelated collection of theorems of a typical textbook on semigroups and automata [3] wi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In the following we describe the basic ideas underlying\Omega\Gamma mkrp, an interactive proof development environment [6]. The requirements for this system were derived from our experiences in proving an interrelated collection of theorems of a typical textbook on semigroups and automata [3] with the firstorder theorem prover mkrp [11]. An important finding was that although current automated theorem provers have evidently reached the power to solve nontrivial problems, they do not provide sufficient assistance for proving the theorems contained in such a textbook. On account of this, we believe that significantly more support for proof development can be provided by a system with the following two features:  The system must provide a comfortable humanoriented problemsolving environment. In particular, a human user should be able to specify the problem to be solved in a natural way and communicate on proof