The use of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics

This paper discusses the usse of data-mining for the automatic formation of tactics. It was presented at the Workshop on Computer-Supported Mathematical Theory Development held at IJCAR in 2004. The aim of this project is to evaluate the applicability of data-mining techniques to the automatic formation of tactics from large corpuses of proofs. We data-mine information from large proof corpuses to find commonly occurring patterns. These patterns are then evolved into tactics using genetic programming techniques

A Tool for Producing Verified, Explainable Proofs

Mathematicians are reluctant to use interactive theorem provers. In this thesis I argue that this is because proof assistants don't emphasise explanations of proofs; and that in order to produce good explanations, the system must create proofs in a manner that mimics how humans would create proofs. My research goals are to determine what constitutes a human-like proof and to represent human-like reasoning within an interactive theorem prover to create formalised, understandable proofs. Another goal is to produce a framework to visualise the goal states of this system. To demonstrate this, I present HumanProof: a piece of software built for the Lean 3 theorem prover. It is used for interactively creating proofs that resemble how human mathematicians reason. The system provides a visual, hierarchical representation of the goal and a system for suggesting available inference rules. The system produces output in the form of both natural language and formal proof terms which are checked by Lean's kernel. This is made possible with the use of a structured goal state system which interfaces with Lean's tactic system which is detailed in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, I present the subtasks automation planning subsystem, which is used to produce equality proofs in a human-like fashion. The basic strategy of the subtasks system is break a given equality problem in to a hierarchy of tasks and then maintain a stack of these tasks in order to determine the order in which to apply equational rewriting moves. This process produces equality chains for simple problems without having to resort to brute force or specialised procedures such as normalisation. This makes proofs more human-like by breaking the problem into a hierarchical set of tasks in the same way that a human would. To produce the interface for this software, I also created the ProofWidgets system for Lean 3. This system is detailed in Chapter 5. The ProofWidgets system uses Lean's metaprogramming framework to allow users to write their own interactive, web-based user interfaces to display within the VSCode editor and in an online web-editor. The entire tactic state is available to the rendering engine, and hence expression structure and types of subexpressions can be explored interactively. The ProofWidgets system also allows the user interface to interactively edit the proof document, enabling a truly interactive modality for creating proofs; human-like or not. In Chapter 6, the system is evaluated by asking real mathematicians about the output of the system, and what it means for a proof to be understandable to them. The user group study asks participants to rank and comment on proofs created by HumanProof alongside natural language and pure Lean proofs. The study finds that participants generally prefer the HumanProof format over the Lean format. The verbal responses collected during the study indicate that providing intuition and signposting are the most important properties of a proof that aid understanding.EPSR

Using features for automated problem solving

We motivate and present an architecture for problem solving where an abstraction layer of "features" plays the key role in determining methods to apply. The system is presented in the context of theorem proving with Isabelle, and we demonstrate how this approach to encoding control knowledge is expressively different to other common techniques. We look closely at two areas where the feature layer may offer benefits to theorem proving — semi-automation and learning — and find strong evidence that in these particular domains, the approach shows compelling promise. The system includes a graphical theorem-proving user interface for Eclipse ProofGeneral and is available from the project web page, http://feasch.heneveld.org

International Congress of Mathematicians: 2022 July 6–14: Proceedings of the ICM 2022

Following the long and illustrious tradition of the International Congress of Mathematicians, these proceedings include contributions based on the invited talks that were presented at the Congress in 2022. Published with the support of the International Mathematical Union and edited by Dmitry Beliaev and Stanislav Smirnov, these seven volumes present the most important developments in all fields of mathematics and its applications in the past four years. In particular, they include laudations and presentations of the 2022 Fields Medal winners and of the other prestigious prizes awarded at the Congress. The proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians provide an authoritative documentation of contemporary research in all branches of mathematics, and are an indispensable part of every mathematical library

Axiomatic Architecture of Scientific Theories

The received concepts of axiomatic theory and axiomatic method, which stem from David Hilbert, need a systematic revision in view of more recent mathematical and scientific axiomatic practices, which do not fully follow in Hilbert’s steps and re-establish some older historical patterns of axiomatic thinking in unexpected new forms. In this work I motivate, formulate and justify such a revised concept of axiomatic theory, which for a variety of reasons I call constructive, and then argue that it can better serve as a formal representational tool in mathematics and science than the received concept