Proof-checking Euclid

We used computer proof-checking methods to verify the correctness of our proofs of the propositions in Euclid Book I. We used axioms as close as possible to those of Euclid, in a language closely related to that used in Tarski's formal geometry. We used proofs as close as possible to those given by Euclid, but filling Euclid's gaps and correcting errors. Euclid Book I has 48 propositions, we proved 235 theorems. The extras were partly "Book Zero", preliminaries of a very fundamental nature, partly propositions that Euclid omitted but were used implicitly, partly advanced theorems that we found necessary to fill Euclid's gaps, and partly just variants of Euclid's propositions. We wrote these proofs in a simple fragment of first-order logic corresponding to Euclid's logic, debugged them using a custom software tool, and then checked them in the well-known and trusted proof checkers HOL Light and Coq.Comment: 53 page

Improving QED-Tutrix by Automating the Generation of Proofs

The idea of assisting teachers with technological tools is not new. Mathematics in general, and geometry in particular, provide interesting challenges when developing educative softwares, both in the education and computer science aspects. QED-Tutrix is an intelligent tutor for geometry offering an interface to help high school students in the resolution of demonstration problems. It focuses on specific goals: 1) to allow the student to freely explore the problem and its figure, 2) to accept proofs elements in any order, 3) to handle a variety of proofs, which can be customized by the teacher, and 4) to be able to help the student at any step of the resolution of the problem, if the need arises. The software is also independent from the intervention of the teacher. QED-Tutrix offers an interesting approach to geometry education, but is currently crippled by the lengthiness of the process of implementing new problems, a task that must still be done manually. Therefore, one of the main focuses of the QED-Tutrix' research team is to ease the implementation of new problems, by automating the tedious step of finding all possible proofs for a given problem. This automation must follow fundamental constraints in order to create problems compatible with QED-Tutrix: 1) readability of the proofs, 2) accessibility at a high school level, and 3) possibility for the teacher to modify the parameters defining the "acceptability" of a proof. We present in this paper the result of our preliminary exploration of possible avenues for this task. Automated theorem proving in geometry is a widely studied subject, and various provers exist. However, our constraints are quite specific and some adaptation would be required to use an existing prover. We have therefore implemented a prototype of automated prover to suit our needs. The future goal is to compare performances and usability in our specific use-case between the existing provers and our implementation.Comment: In Proceedings ThEdu'17, arXiv:1803.0072

Automated Theorem Proving in GeoGebra: Current Achievements

GeoGebra is an open-source educational mathematics software tool, with millions of users worldwide. It has a number of features (integration of computer algebra, dynamic geometry, spreadsheet, etc.), primarily focused on facilitating student experiments, and not on formal reasoning. Since including automated deduction tools in GeoGebra could bring a whole new range of teaching and learning scenarios, and since automated theorem proving and discovery in geometry has reached a rather mature stage, we embarked on a project of incorporating and testing a number of different automated provers for geometry in GeoGebra. In this paper, we present the current achievements and status of this project, and discuss various relevant challenges that this project raises in the educational, mathematical and software contexts. We will describe, first, the recent and forthcoming changes demanded by our project, regarding the implementation and the user interface of GeoGebra. Then we present our vision of the educational scenarios that could be supported by automated reasoning features, and how teachers and students could benefit from the present work. In fact, current performance of GeoGebra, extended with automated deduction tools, is already very promising—many complex theorems can be proved in less than 1 second. Thus, we believe that many new and exciting ways of using GeoGebra in the classroom are on their way

Mathematical practice, crowdsourcing, and social machines

The highest level of mathematics has traditionally been seen as a solitary endeavour, to produce a proof for review and acceptance by research peers. Mathematics is now at a remarkable inflexion point, with new technology radically extending the power and limits of individuals. Crowdsourcing pulls together diverse experts to solve problems; symbolic computation tackles huge routine calculations; and computers check proofs too long and complicated for humans to comprehend. Mathematical practice is an emerging interdisciplinary field which draws on philosophy and social science to understand how mathematics is produced. Online mathematical activity provides a novel and rich source of data for empirical investigation of mathematical practice - for example the community question answering system {\it mathoverflow} contains around 40,000 mathematical conversations, and {\it polymath} collaborations provide transcripts of the process of discovering proofs. Our preliminary investigations have demonstrated the importance of "soft" aspects such as analogy and creativity, alongside deduction and proof, in the production of mathematics, and have given us new ways to think about the roles of people and machines in creating new mathematical knowledge. We discuss further investigation of these resources and what it might reveal. Crowdsourced mathematical activity is an example of a "social machine", a new paradigm, identified by Berners-Lee, for viewing a combination of people and computers as a single problem-solving entity, and the subject of major international research endeavours. We outline a future research agenda for mathematics social machines, a combination of people, computers, and mathematical archives to create and apply mathematics, with the potential to change the way people do mathematics, and to transform the reach, pace, and impact of mathematics research.Comment: To appear, Springer LNCS, Proceedings of Conferences on Intelligent Computer Mathematics, CICM 2013, July 2013 Bath, U

What Do We Mean by Mathematical Proof?

Mathematical proof lies at the foundations of mathematics, but there are several notions of what mathematical proof is, or might be. In fact, the idea of mathematical proof continues to evolve. In this article, I review the body of literature that argues that there are at least two widely held meanings of proof, and that the standards of proof are negotiated and agreed upon by the members of mathematical communities. The formal view of proof is contrasted with the view of proofs as arguments intended to convince a reader. These views are examined in the context of the various roles of proof. The conceptions of proof held by students, and communities of students, are discussed, as well as the pedagogy of introductory proof-writing classes