Computer theorem proving in math

We give an overview of issues surrounding computer-verified theorem proving in the standard pure-mathematical context. This is based on my talk at the PQR conference (Brussels, June 2003)

Wave Equation Numerical Resolution: a Comprehensive Mechanized Proof of a C Program

We formally prove correct a C program that implements a numerical scheme for the resolution of the one-dimensional acoustic wave equation. Such an implementation introduces errors at several levels: the numerical scheme introduces method errors, and floating-point computations lead to round-off errors. We annotate this C program to specify both method error and round-off error. We use Frama-C to generate theorems that guarantee the soundness of the code. We discharge these theorems using SMT solvers, Gappa, and Coq. This involves a large Coq development to prove the adequacy of the C program to the numerical scheme and to bound errors. To our knowledge, this is the first time such a numerical analysis program is fully machine-checked.Comment: No. RR-7826 (2011

Case Studies in Proof Checking

The aim of computer proof checking is not to find proofs, but to verify them. This is different from automated deduction, which is the use of computers to find proofs that humans have not devised first. Currently, checking a proof by computer is done by taking a known mathematical proof and entering it into the special language recognized by a proof verifier program, and then running the verifier to hopefully obtain no errors. Of course, if the proof checker approves the proof, there are considerations of whether or not the proof checker is correct, and this has been complicated by the fact that so many systems have sprung into being. The two main challenges in using a proof checker today are the time needed to learn the syntax and general usage of the system and the time needed to formalize a proof in the system even when the user is already proficient with it. As mathematicians are not yet using proof checkers regularly, we wanted to evaluate the validity of this reluctance by analyzing these main obstacles. Judging by Dr. Wiedijk’s Formalizing 100 Theorems list, which gives an overview of the headway various proof systems have made in mathematics, Coq and Mizar are two of the most successful systems in use today (Wiedijk, 2007). I simultaneously formalized two fairly involved theorems in these two systems while I was at approximately the same level of familiarity with each. I kept track of my experiences with learning the systems and analyzed their comparative strengths and weaknesses. The analysis and summary of experiences should also give a general idea of the current state of computer-aided proof checking

Repenser la bibliothèque réelle de Coq : vers une formalisation de l'analyse classique mieux adaptée

Real analysis is pervasive to many applications, if only because it is a suitable tool for modeling physical or socio-economical systems. As such, its support is warranted in proof assistants, so that the users have a way to formally verify mathematical theorems and correctness of critical systems. The Coq system comes with an axiomatization of standard real numbers and a library of theorems on real analysis. Unfortunately, this standard library is lacking some widely used results. For instance, the definitions of integrals and derivatives are based on dependent types, which make them cumbersome to use in practice. This thesis first describes various state-of-the-art libraries available in proof assistants. To palliate the inadequacies of the Coq standard library, we have designed a user-friendly formalization of real analysis: Coquelicot. An easier way of writing formulas and theorem statements is achieved by relying on total functions in place of dependent types for limits, derivatives, integrals, power series, and so on. To help with the proof process, the library comes with a comprehensive set of theorems that cover not only these notions, but also some extensions such as parametric integrals and asymptotic behaviors. Moreover, an algebraic hierarchy makes it possible to apply some of the theorems in a more generic setting, such as complex numbers or matrices. Coquelicot is a conservative extension of the classical analysis of Coq's standard library and we provide correspondence theorems between the two formalizations. We have exercised the library on several use cases: in an exam at university entry level, for the definitions and properties of Bessel functions, and for the solution of the one-dimensional wave equation.L'analyse réelle a de nombreuses applications car c'est un outil approprié pour modéliser de nombreux phénomènes physiques et socio-économiques. En tant que tel, sa formalisation dans des systèmes de preuve formelle est justifié pour permettre aux utilisateurs de vérifier formellement des théorèmes mathématiques et l'exactitude de systèmes critiques. La bibliothèque standard de Coq dispose d'une axiomatisation des nombres réels et d'une bibliothèque de théorèmes d'analyse réelle. Malheureusement, cette bibliothèque souffre de nombreuses lacunes. Par exemple, les définitions des intégrales et des dérivées sont basées sur les types dépendants, ce qui les rend difficiles à utiliser dans la pratique. Cette thèse décrit d'abord l'état de l'art des différentes bibliothèques d'analyse réelle disponibles dans les assistants de preuve. Pour pallier les insuffisances de la bibliothèque standard de Coq, nous avons conçu une bibliothèque facile à utiliser : Coquelicot. Une façon plus facile d'écrire les formules et les théorèmes a été mise en place en utilisant des fonctions totales à la place des types dépendants pour écrire les limites, dérivées, intégrales et séries entières. Pour faciliter l'utilisation, la bibliothèque dispose d'un ensemble complet de théorèmes couvrant ces notions, mais aussi quelques extensions comme les intégrales à paramètres et les comportements asymptotiques. En plus, une hiérarchie algébrique permet d'appliquer certains théorèmes dans un cadre plus générique comme les nombres complexes pour les matrices. Coquelicot est une extension conservative de l'analyse classique de la bibliothèque standard de Coq et nous avons démontré les théorèmes de correspondance entre les deux formalisations. Nous avons testé la bibliothèque sur plusieurs cas d'utilisation : sur une épreuve du Baccalauréat, pour les définitions et les propriétés des fonctions de Bessel ainsi que pour la solution de l'équation des ondes en dimension 1

A Constructive Formalization of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Item does not contain fulltextTYPES 200