BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for researchDiscover
Workspaces
Network
Opportunities
Account
Researcher profile
Jesse Alama contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.
Trust snapshot
Actions
Identity and collaboration
Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.
Log in to claimDirect collaboration
Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.
Research graph
Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
Dialogue games are a two-player semantics for a variety of logics, including intuitionistic and classical logic. Dialogues can be viewed as a kind of analytic calculus not unlike tableaux. Can dialogue games be an effective foundation for proof search in intuitionistic logic (both first-order and propositional)? We announce Kuno, an automated theorem prover for intuitionistic first-order logic based on dialogue games.
This note reports on some experiments, using a handful of standard automated reasoning tools, for exploring Steinitz-Rademacher polyhedra, which are models of a certain first-order theory of incidence structures. This theory and its models, even simple ones, presents significant, geometrically fascinating challenges for automated reasoning tools.
The proof identity problem asks: When are two proofs the same? The question naturally occurs when one reflects on mathematical practice. The problem understandably can be seen as a challenge for mathematical logic, and indeed various perspectives on the problem can be found in the proof theory literature. From the proof theory perspective, the challenge is met by laying down new calculi that eliminate ``bureaucracy''; techniques such as normalization and cut-elimination, as well as proof compression, are employed. In this note a new perspective on the proof identity problem is outlined. The new approach employs the concepts and tools of automated theorem proving and complements the rather more theoretical perspectives coming from pure proof theory. The practical approach is illustrated with experiments coming from the TPTP Problem Library.
Problems in two axiomatizations of Jaśkowski's discussive (or discursive) logic D2 are considered. A recent axiomatization of D2 and completeness proof relative to D2's intended semantics seems to be mistaken because some formulas valid according to the intended semantics turn out to be unprovable. Although no new axiomatization is offered, nor a repaired completeness proof given, the shortcomings identified here may be a step toward an improved axiomatization.
For a newcomer, paraconsistent logics can be difficult to grasp. Even experts in logic can find the concept of paraconsistency to be suspicious or misguided, if not actually wrong. The problem is that although they usually have much in common with more familiar logics (such as intuitionistic or classical logic), paraconsistent logics necessarily disagree in other parts of the logical terrain which one might have thought were not up for debate. Thus, one's logical intuitions may need to be recalibrated to work skillfully with paraconsistency. To get started, one should clearly appreciate the possibility of paraconsistent logics and the genuineness of the distinctions to which paraconsistency points. For this purpose, one typically encounters matrices involving more than two truth values to characterize suitable consequence relations. In the eyes of a two-valued skeptic, such an approach might seem dubious. Even a non-skeptic might wonder if there's another way. To this end, to explore the basic notions of paraconsistent logic with the assistance of automated reasoning techniques. Such an approach has merit because by delegating some of the logical work to a machine, one's logical "biases" become externalized. The result is a new way to appreciate that the distinctions to which paraconsistent logic points are indeed genuine. Our approach can even suggest new questions and problems for the paraconsistent logic community.
A recently proposed axiom system for André's central translation structures is improved upon. First, one of its axioms turns out to be dependent (derivable from the other axioms). Without this axiom, the axiom system is indeed independent. Second, whereas most of the original independence models were infinite, finite independence models are available. Moreover, the independence proof for one of the axioms employed proof-theoretic techniques rather than independence models; for this axiom, too, a finite independence model exists. For every axiom, then, there is a finite independence model. Finally, the axiom system (without its single dependent axiom) is not only independent, but completely independent.
As one of the longest-running computer-assisted formal mathematics projects, large tracts of mathematical knowledge have been formalized with the help of the Mizar system. Because Mizar is based on first-order classical logic and set theory, and because of its emphasis on pure mathematics, the Mizar library offers a cornucopia for the researcher interested in foundations of mathematics. With Mizar, one can adopt an experimental approach and take on problems in foundations, at least those which are amenable to such experimentation. Addressing a question posed by H. Friedman, we use Mizar to take on the question of surveying the sentence complexity (measured by quantifier alternation) of mathematical theorems. We find, as Friedman suggests, that the sentence complexity of most Mizar theorems is universal ($Π_{1}$, or $\forall$), and as one goes higher in the sentence complexity hierarchy the number of Mizar theorems having these complexities decreases rapidly. The results support the intuitive idea that mathematical statements, even when carried out an abstract set-theoretical style, are usually quite low in the sentence complexity hierarchy (not more complex than $\forall\exists\forall$ or $\exists\forall$).
We improve upon Huntington's affine geometry by showing that his independence proofs can be, in some cases, simplified. We carry out a systematic investigation of the strict notion of betweenness that Huntington employs (the three arguments are supposed to be distinct) by comparing it to McPhee's three axiom systems for the same intended class of structures, which employs weak betweenness (the arguments are permitted to be equal). Upon closely inspecting the proof that McPhee's axiom systems are equivalent to Huntington's (subject of course to the definition of weak betweenness in terms of strict and vice versa), one finds surprisingly that McPhee's axiom systems have quite different relations to strict betweenness.
Lorenzen dialogues provide a two-player game formalism that can characterize a variety of logics: each set $S$ of rules for such a game determines a set $\mathcal{D}(S)$ of formulas for which one of the players (the so-called Proponent) has a winning strategy, and the set $\mathcal{D}(S)$ can coincide with various logics, such as intuitionistic, classical, modal, connexive, and relevance logics. But the standard sets of rules employed for these games are often logically opaque and can involve subtle interactions among each other. Moreover, $\mathcal{D}(S)$ can vary in unexpected ways with $S$; small changes in $S$, even logically well-motivated ones, can make $\mathcal{D}(S)$ logically unusual. We pose the problem of providing a structure theory that could explain how $\mathcal{D}(S)$ varies with $S$, and in particular, when $\mathcal{D}(S)$ is closed under modus ponens (and thus constitutes at least a minimal kind of logic).
We announce a tool for mapping derivations of the E theorem prover to Mizar proofs. Our mapping complements earlier work that generates problems for automated theorem provers from Mizar inference checking problems. We describe the tool, explain the mapping, and show how we solved some of the difficulties that arise in mapping proofs between different logical formalisms, even when they are based on the same notion of logical consequence, as Mizar and E are (namely, first-order classical logic with identity).
The Mizar language aims to capture mathematical vernacular by providing a rich language for mathematics. From the perspective of a user, the richness of the language is welcome because it makes writing texts more "natural". But for the developer, the richness leads to syntactic complexity, such as dealing with overloading. Recently the Mizar team has been making a fresh approach to the problem of parsing the Mizar language. One aim is to make the language accessible to users and other developers. In this paper we describe these new parsing efforts and some applications thereof, such as large-scale text refactorings, pretty-printing, HTTP parsing services, and normalizations of Mizar texts.
Smart premise selection is essential when using automated reasoning as a tool for large-theory formal proof development. A good method for premise selection in complex mathematical libraries is the application of machine learning to large corpora of proofs. This work develops learning-based premise selection in two ways. First, a newly available minimal dependency analysis of existing high-level formal mathematical proofs is used to build a large knowledge base of proof dependencies, providing precise data for ATP-based re-verification and for training premise selection algorithms. Second, a new machine learning algorithm for premise selection based on kernel methods is proposed and implemented. To evaluate the impact of both techniques, a benchmark consisting of 2078 large-theory mathematical problems is constructed,extending the older MPTP Challenge benchmark. The combined effect of the techniques results in a 50% improvement on the benchmark over the Vampire/SInE state-of-the-art system for automated reasoning in large theories.
In some theory development tasks, a problem is satisfactorily solved once it is shown that a theorem (conjecture) is derivable from the background theory (premises). Depending on one's motivations, the details of the derivation of the conjecture from the premises may or may not be important. In some contexts, though, one wants more from theory development than simply derivability of the target theorems from the background theory. One may want to know which premises of the background theory were used in the course of a proof output by an automated theorem prover (when a proof is available), whether they are all, in suitable senses, necessary (and why), whether alternative proofs can be found, and so forth. The problem, then, is to support proof analysis in theory development; the tool described in this paper, Tipi, aims to provide precisely that.
When formalizing proofs with interactive theorem provers, it often happens that extra background knowledge (declarative or procedural) about mathematical concepts is employed without the formalizer explicitly invoking it, to help the formalizer focus on the relevant details of the proof. In the contexts of producing and studying a formalized mathematical argument, such mechanisms are clearly valuable. But we may not always wish to suppress background knowledge. For certain purposes, it is important to know, as far as possible, precisely what background knowledge was implicitly employed in a formal proof. In this note we describe an experiment conducted on the MIZAR Mathematical Library of formal mathematical proofs to elicit one such class of implicitly employed background knowledge: properties of functions and relations (e.g., commutativity, asymmetry, etc.).
We present several steps towards large formal mathematical wikis. The Coq proof assistant together with the CoRN repository are added to the pool of systems handled by the general wiki system described in \cite{DBLP:conf/aisc/UrbanARG10}. A smart re-verification scheme for the large formal libraries in the wiki is suggested for Mizar/MML and Coq/CoRN, based on recently developed precise tracking of mathematical dependencies. We propose to use features of state-of-the-art filesystems to allow real-time cloning and sandboxing of the entire libraries, allowing also to extend the wiki to a true multi-user collaborative area. A number of related issues are discussed.
The Mizar Mathematical Library (MML) is a large corpus of formalised mathematical knowledge. It has been constructed over the course of many years by a large number of authors and maintainers. Yet the legal status of these efforts of the Mizar community has never been clarified. In 2010, after many years of loose deliberations, the community decided to investigate the issue of licensing the content of the MML, thereby clarifying and crystallizing the status of the texts, the text's authors, and the library's long-term maintainers. The community has settled on a copyright and license policy that suits the peculiar features of Mizar and its community. In this paper we discuss the copyright and license solutions. We offer our experience in the hopes that the communities of other libraries of formalised mathematical knowledge might take up the legal and scientific problems that we addressed for Mizar.
The Mizar Mathematical Library (MML) is a rich database of formalized mathematical proofs (see http://mizar.org). Owing to its large size (it contains more than 1100 "articles" summing to nearly 2.5 million lines of text, expressing more than 50000 theorems and 10000 definitions using more than 7000 symbols), the nature of its contents (the MML is slanted toward pure mathematics), and its classical foundations (first-order logic, set theory, natural deduction), the MML is an especially attractive target for research on foundations of mathematics. We have implemented a system, mizar-items, on which a variety of such foundational experiements can be based. The heart of mizar-items is a method for decomposing the contents of the MML into fine-grained "items" (e.g., theorem, definition, notation, etc.) and computing dependency relations among these items. mizar-items also comes equipped with a website for exploring these dependencies and interacting with them.
Dialogue games are two-player logic games between a Proponent who puts forward a logical formula A as valid or true and an Opponent who disputes this. An advantage of the dialogical approach is that it is a uniform framework from which different logics can be obtained through only small variations of the basic rules. We introduce the composition problem for dialogue games as the problem of resolving, for a set S of rules for dialogue games, whether the set of S-dialogically valid formulas is closed under modus ponens. Solving the composition problem is fundamental for the dialogical approach to logic; despite its simplicity, it often requires an indirect solution with the help of significant logical machinery such as cut-elimination. We give a set N of dialogue rules that is quite close to a set of rules known to characterize classical propositional logic, and which is evidently well-justified from the dialogical point of view, but whose set of dialogically valid formulas is quite peculiar (and non-trivial). Its peculiarity notwithstanding, the composition problem for N can be solved directly.
Formal mathematics has so far not taken full advantage of ideas from collaborative tools such as wikis and distributed version control systems (DVCS). We argue that the field could profit from such tools, serving both newcomers and experts alike. We describe a preliminary system for such collaborative development based on the Git DVCS. We focus, initially, on the Mizar system and its library of formalized mathematics.