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

From LCF to Isabelle/HOL

Interactive theorem provers have developed dramatically over the past four decades, from primitive beginnings to today's powerful systems. Here, we focus on Isabelle/HOL and its distinctive strengths. They include automatic proof search, borrowing techniques from the world of first order theorem proving, but also the automatic search for counterexamples. They include a highly readable structured language of proofs and a unique interactive development environment for editing live proof documents. Everything rests on the foundation conceived by Robin Milner for Edinburgh LCF: a proof kernel, using abstract types to ensure soundness and eliminate the need to store proofs. Compared with the research prototypes of the 1970s, Isabelle is a practical and versatile tool. It is used by system designers, mathematicians and many others

Formalization of Real Analysis: A Survey of Proof Assistants and Libraries

International audienceIn the recent years, numerous proof systems have improved enough to be used for formally verifying non-trivial mathematical results. They, however, have different purposes and it is not always easy to choose which one is adapted to undertake a formalization effort. In this survey, we focus on properties related to real analysis: real numbers, arithmetic operators, limits, differentiability, integrability, and so on. We have chosen to look into the formalizations provided in standard by the following systems: Coq, HOL4, HOL Light, Isabelle/HOL, Mizar, ProofPower-HOL, and PVS. We have also accounted for large developments that play a similar role or extend standard libraries: ACL2(r) for ACL2, C-CoRN/MathClasses for Coq, and the NASA PVS library. This survey presents how real numbers have been defined in these various provers and how the notions of real analysis described above have been formalized. We also look at the methods of automation these systems provide for real analysis

Ordered geometry in Hilbert’s Grundlagen der Geometrie

The Grundlagen der Geometrie brought Euclid’s ancient axioms up to the standards of modern logic, anticipating a completely mechanical verification of their theorems. There are five groups of axioms, each focused on a logical feature of Euclidean geometry. The first two groups give us ordered geometry, a highly limited setting where there is no talk of measure or angle. From these, we mechanically verify the Polygonal Jordan Curve Theorem, a result of much generality given the setting, and subtle enough to warrant a full verification. Along the way, we describe and implement a general-purpose algebraic language for proof search, which we use to automate arguments from the first axiom group. We then follow Hilbert through the preliminary definitions and theorems that lead up to his statement of the Polygonal Jordan Curve Theorem. These, once formalised and verified, give us a final piece of automation. Suitably armed, we can then tackle the main theorem

Formalizing Chemical Physics using the Lean Theorem Prover

Chemical theory can be made more rigorous using the Lean theorem prover, an interactive theorem prover for complex mathematics. We formalize the Langmuir and BET theories of adsorption, making each scientific premise clear and every step of the derivations explicit. Lean's math library, mathlib, provides formally verified theorems for infinite geometries series, which are central to BET theory. While writing these proofs, Lean prompts us to include mathematical constraints that were not originally reported. We also illustrate how Lean flexibly enables the reuse of proofs that build on more complex theories through the use of functions, definitions, and structures. Finally, we construct scientific frameworks for interoperable proofs, by creating structures for classical thermodynamics and kinematics, using them to formalize gas law relationships like Boyle's Law and equations of motion underlying Newtonian mechanics, respectively. This approach can be extended to other fields, enabling the formalization of rich and complex theories in science and engineering