BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Michael Beeson

Michael Beeson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.LOLogic in Computer Sciencemath.DGArtificial Intelligencemath.HOmath.MG

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - Emerging
8works
0followers
6topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

8 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On the Notion of Equal Figures in Euclid

Euclid uses an undefined notion of "equal figures", to which he applies the common notions about equals added to equals or subtracted from equals. When (in previous work) we formalized Euclid Book~I for computer proof-checking, we had to add fifteen axioms about undefined relations "equal triangles" and "equal quadrilaterals" to replace Euclid's use of the common notions. In this paper, we offer definitions of "equal triangles" and "equal quadrilaterals", that Euclid could have given, and prove that they have the required properties. This removes the need for adding new axioms. The proof uses the theory of proportions. Hence we also discuss the "early theory of proportions", which has a long history.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Euclid After Computer Proof-checking

Euclid pioneered the concept of a mathematical theory developed from axioms by a series of justified proof steps. From the outset there were critics and improvers. In this century the use of computers to check proofs for correctness sets a new standard of rigor. How does Euclid stand up under such an examination? And what does the exercise have to teach us about geometry, mathematical foundations, and the relation of logic to truth?

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Finding Proofs in Tarskian Geometry

We report on a project to use a theorem prover to find proofs of the theorems in Tarskian geometry. These theorems start with fundamental properties of betweenness, proceed through the derivations of several famous theorems due to Gupta and end with the derivation from Tarski's axioms of Hilbert's 1899 axioms for geometry. They include the four challenge problems left unsolved by Quaife, who two decades ago found some \Otter proofs in Tarskian geometry (solving challenges issued in Wos's 1998 book). There are 212 theorems in this collection. We were able to find \Otter proofs of all these theorems. We developed a methodology for the automated preparation and checking of the input files for those theorems, to ensure that no human error has corrupted the formal development of an entire theory as embodied in two hundred input files and proofs. We distinguish between proofs that were found completely mechanically (without reference to the steps of a book proof) and proofs that were constructed by some technique that involved a human knowing the steps of a book proof. Proofs of length 40--100, roughly speaking, are difficult exercises for a human, and proofs of 100-250 steps belong in a Ph.D. thesis or publication. 29 of the proofs in our collection are longer than 40 steps, and ten are longer than 90 steps. We were able to derive completely mechanically all but 26 of the 183 theorems that have "short" proofs (40 or fewer deduction steps). We found proofs of the rest, as well as the 29 "hard" theorems, using a method that requires consulting the book proof at the outset. Our "subformula strategy" enabled us to prove four of the 29 hard theorems completely mechanically. These are Ph.D. level proofs, of length up to 108.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

The number of minimal surfaces bounded by Enneper's wire

Enneper's wire, the image of the circle of radius $R$ under Enneper's surface, bounds exactly three minimal surfaces for $R$ between 1 and $\sqrt 3$, and these three surfaces depend continuously on $R$. The other two surfaces (besides Enneper's surface) are absolute minima of area among disk-type surfaces bounded by Enneper's wire. These surfaces each have a unique horizontal tangent plane, whose height can be computed from $R$, and they are invariant under reflections in the planes $x_1=0$ and $x_2 = 0$. These two surfaces have positive second variation of area, and depend continuously on $R$. This result solves three open problems from the list in Nitche's 1989 book. Enneper's wire is the only Jordan curve $Γ$ bounding more than one minimal surface for which a specific bound on the number of minimal surfaces bounded by $Γ$ is known.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

A Constructive Version of Tarski's Geometry

Euclid's reasoning is essentially constructive. Tarski's elegant and concise first-order theory of Euclidean geometry, on the other hand, is essentially non-constructive, even if we restrict attention (as we do here) to the theory with line-circle and circle-circle continuity in place of first-order Dedekind completeness. Here we exhibit three constructive versions of Tarski's theory. One, like Tarski's theory, has existential axioms and no function symbols. We then consider a version in which function symbols are used instead of existential quantifiers. The third version has a function symbol for the intersection point of two non-parallel, non-coincident lines, instead of only for intersection points produced by Pasch's axiom and the parallel axiom; this choice of function symbols connects directly to ruler-and-compass constructions. All three versions have this in common: the axioms have been modified so that the points they assert to exist are unique and depend continuously on parameters. This modification of Tarski's axioms, with classical logic, has the same theorems as Tarski's theory, but we obtain results connecting it with ruler-and-compass constructions as well. In particular, points constructively proved to exist can be constructed with ruler and compass, uniformly in parameters; the same is true with non-constructive proofs if several constructions are allowed for different cases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Constructive Geometry and the Parallel Postulate

Euclidean geometry consists of straightedge-and-compass constructions and reasoning about the results of those constructions. We show that Euclidean geometry can be developed using only intuitionistic logic. We consider three versions of Euclid's parallel postulate: Euclid's own formulation in his Postulate 5; Playfair's 1795 version, and a new version we call the strong parallel postulate. These differ in that Euclid's version and the new version both assert the existence of a point where two lines meet, while Playfair's version makes no existence assertion. Classically, the models of Euclidean (straightedge-and-compass) geometry are planes over Euclidean fields. We prove a similar theorem for constructive Euclidean geometry, by showing how to define addition and multiplication without a case distinction about the sign of the arguments. With intuitionistic logic, there are two possible definitions of Euclidean fields, which turn out to correspond to the different versions of the parallel axiom. In this paper, we completely settle the questions about implications between the three versions of the parallel postulate: the strong parallel postulate easily implies Euclid 5, and in fact Euclid 5 also implies the strong parallel postulate, although the proof is lengthy, depending on the verification that Euclid 5 suffices to define multiplication geometrically. We show that Playfair does not imply Euclid 5, and we also give some other independence results. Our independence proofs are given without discussing the exact choice of the other axioms of geometry; all we need is that one can interpret the geometric axioms in Euclidean field theory. The proofs use Kripke models of Euclidean field theories based on carefully constructed rings of real-valued functions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Herbrand's theorem and non-Euclidean geometry

We use Herbrand's theorem to give a new proof that Euclid's parallel axiom is not derivable from the other axioms of first-order Euclidean geometry. Previous proofs involve constructing models of non-Euclidean geometry. This proof uses a very old and basic theorem of logic together with some simple properties of ruler-and-compass constructions to give a short, simple, and intuitively appealing proof.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access