In Baghdad in the mid twelfth century Abū al-Barakāt proposes a radical new procedure for finding the conclusions of premise-pairs in syllogistic logic, and for identifying those premise-pairs that have no conclusions. The procedure makes no use of features of the standard Aristotelian apparatus, such as conversions or syllogistic figures. In place of these al-Barakāt writes out pages of diagrams consisting of labelled horizontal lines. He gives no instructions and no proof that the procedure will yield correct results. So (...) the reader has to work out what his procedure is and whether it is correct. The procedure turns out to be insightful and entirely correct, but this paper may be the first study to give a full description of the procedure and a rigorous proof of its correctness. (shrink)

Evidential reasoning is hard, and errors can lead to miscarriages of justice with serious consequences. Analytic methods for the correct handling of evidence come in different styles, typically focusing on one of three tools: arguments, scenarios or probabilities. Recent research used Bayesian networks for connecting arguments, scenarios, and probabilities. Well-known issues with Bayesian networks were encountered: More numbers are needed than are available, and there is a risk of misinterpretation of the graph underlying the Bayesian network, for instance as a (...) causal model. The formalism presented here models presumptive arguments about coherent hypotheses that are compared in terms of their strength. No choice is needed between qualitative or quantitative analytic styles, since the formalism can be interpreted with and without numbers. The formalism is applied to key concepts in argumentative, scenario and probabilistic analyses of evidential reasoning, and is illustrated with a fictional crime investigation example based on Alfred Hitchcock’s film ‘To Catch A Thief’. (shrink)

We define proof nets for cyclic multiplicative linear logic as edge bi-coloured graphs. Our characterization is purely graph theoretical and works without further complication for proof nets with cuts, which are usually harder to handle in the non-commutative case. This also provides a new characterization of the proof nets for the Lambek calculus (with the empty sequence) which simply are a restriction on the formulas to be considered (which are asked to be intuitionistic).

We show that every MALL proof-structure [9] satisfies the property of softness, originally a categorical notion introduced by Joyal. Furthermore, we show that the notion of hereditary softness precisely captures Girard’s algebraic restriction of the technical condition on proof-structures. Relying on this characterization, we prove a MALL+Mix sequentialization theorem by a proof-theoretical method, using Girard’s notion of jump. Our MALL+Mix correctness criterion subsumes the Danos/Fleury-Retoré criterion [6] for MLL+Mix.

The abstract of this chapter was initially published with error. The chapter has been updated with the corrected abstract as given below.

There was a spelling error in the second author’s last name in the original publication. The name is correct in this erratum.

We introduce a new correctness criterion for multiplicative non commutative proof nets which can be considered as the non- commutative counterpart to the Danos-Regnier criterion for proof nets of linear logic. The main intuition relies on the fact that any switching for a proof net can be naturally viewed as a series-parallel order variety on the conclusions of the proof net.

We report here on the set of complete proofs of Volumes I and II of Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica newly acquired by the Bertrand Russell Archives. These proof sheets, marked with a number of corrections, were likely bound for Russell by Cambridge University Press, though not exactly the same as the first edition. We assess the information to be gained from the texts and the corrections, most significantly around *110 in Vol. II and the lost dot of the (...) empty relation in Vol. I. All are in Russell’s hand and described in an appendix. We also note several revisions in the first edition that were made after these proofs. We discuss the provenance of the volumes, and Russell’s correspondence about proofs of PM with M. H. Dziewicki, but we find that there is insufficient evidence to determine the chain of possession from Russell to their discovery for sale in Australia in recent years. (shrink)

This paper presents a new correctness criterion for marked Danos-Reginer graphs of Multiplicative Cyclic Linear Logic MCLL and Abrusci's non-commutative Linear Logic MNLL. As a corollary we obtain an affirmative answer to the open question whether a known quadratic-time algorithm for the correctness checking of proof nets for MCLL and MNLL can be improved to linear-time.

This paper presents a new correctness criterion for marked Danos-Reginer graphs (D-R graphs, for short) of Multiplicative Cyclic Linear Logic MCLL and Abrusci's non-commutative Linear Logic MNLL. As a corollary we obtain an affirmative answer to the open question whether a known quadratic-time algorithm for the correctness checking of proof nets for MCLL and MNLL can be improved to linear-time.

1971. Discourse Grammars and the Structure of Mathematical Reasoning II: The Nature of a Correct Theory of Proof and Its Value, Journal of Structural Learning 3, #2, 1–16. REPRINTED 1976. Structural Learning II Issues and Approaches, ed. J. Scandura, Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, New York, MR56#15263. -/- This is the second of a series of three articles dealing with application of linguistics and logic to the study of mathematical reasoning, especially in the setting of a concern for improvement (...) of mathematical education. The present article presupposes the previous one. Herein we develop our ideas of the purposes of a theory of proof and the criterion of success to be applied to such theories. In addition we speculate at length concerning the specific kinds of uses to which a successful theory of proof may be put vis-a-vis improvement of various aspects of mathematical education. The final article will deal with the construction of such a theory. The 1st is the 1971. Discourse Grammars and the Structure of Mathematical Reasoning I: Mathematical Reasoning and Stratification of Language, Journal of Structural Learning 3, #1, 55–74. https://www.academia.edu/s/fb081b1886?source=link . (shrink)

In this paper we show how Dummett-Prawitz-style proof-theoretic semantics has to be modified in order to cope with paradoxical phenomena. It will turn out that one of its basic tenets has to be given up, namely the definition of the correctness of an inference as validity preservation. As a result, the notions of an argument being valid and of an argument being constituted by correct inference rules will no more coincide. The gap between the two notions is accounted (...) for by introducing the distinction between sense and denotation in the proof-theoretic-semantic setting. (shrink)

Computational tools might tempt us to renounce complete cer- tainty. By forgoing of rigorous proof, we could get (very) probable results for a fraction of the cost. But is it really true that proofs (as we know and love them) can lead us to certainty? Maybe not. Proofs do not wear their correct- ness on their sleeve, and we are not infallible in checking them. This suggests that we need help to check our results. When our fellow mathematicians will (...) be too tired or too busy to scrutinize our putative proofs, computer proof assistants could help. But feeding a mathematical argument to a computer is hard. Still, we might be willing to undertake the endeavor in view of the extra perks that formalization may bring—chiefly among them, an enhanced mathematical understanding. (shrink)

Smith argues that, unlike other forms of evidence, naked statistical evidence fails to satisfy normic support. This is his solution to the puzzles of statistical evidence in legal proof. This paper focuses on Smith’s claim that DNA evidence in cold-hit cases does not satisfy normic support. I argue that if this claim is correct, virtually no other form of evidence used at trial can satisfy normic support. This is troublesome. I discuss a few ways in which Smith can respond.

Although there exist today a variety of non-deductive reliable processes able to determine the truth of certain mathematical propositions, proof remains the only form of justification accepted in mathematical practice. Some philosophers and mathematicians have contested this commonly accepted epistemic superiority of proof on the ground that mathematicians are fallible: when the deductive method is carried out by a fallible agent, then it comes with its own level of reliability, and so might happen to be equally or even (...) less reliable than existing non-deductive reliable processes—I will refer to this as the reliability argument. The aim of this article is to examine whether the reliability argument forces us to reconsider the commonly accepted epistemic superiority of the deductive method over non-deductive reliable processes. I will argue that the reliability argument is fundamentally correct, but that there is another epistemic property differentiating the deductive method from non-deductive reliable processes. This property is based on the observation that although mathematicians are fallible agents, they are also self-correcting agents. This means that when a proof is produced that only contains repairable mistakes, given enough time and energy, a mathematician or a group thereof should be able to converge towards a correct proof through a finite number of verification and correction rounds, thus providing a guarantee that the considered proposition is true, something that non-deductive reliable processes will never be able to produce. From this perspective, the standard of justification adopted in mathematical practice should be read in a diachronic way: the demand is not that any proof that is ever produced be correct—which would amount to requiring that mathematicians are infallible—but rather that, over time, proofs that contain repairable mistakes be corrected, and proofs that cannot be repaired be rejected. (shrink)

For courses in Transition to Advanced Mathematics or Introduction to Proof. Meticulously crafted, student-friendly text that helps build mathematical maturity Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics, 4th Edition introduces students to proof techniques, analyzing proofs, and writing proofs of their own that are not only mathematically correct but clearly written. Written in a student-friendly manner, it provides a solid introduction to such topics as relations, functions, and cardinalities of sets, as well as optional excursions into fields such (...) as number theory, combinatorics, and calculus. The exercises receive consistent praise from users for their thoughtfulness and creativity. They help students progress from understanding and analyzing proofs and techniques to producing well-constructed proofs independently. This book is also an excellent reference for students to use in future courses when writing or reading proofs. 0134746759 / 9780134746753 Chartrand/Polimeni/Zhang, Mathematical Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics, 4/e. (shrink)

In this dissertation, we shall investigate whether Tennant's criterion for paradoxicality(TCP) can be a correct criterion for genuine paradoxes and whether the requirement of a normal derivation(RND) can be a proof-theoretic solution to the paradoxes. Tennant’s criterion has two types of counterexamples. The one is a case which raises the problem of overgeneration that TCP makes a paradoxical derivation non-paradoxical. The other is one which generates the problem of undergeneration that TCP renders a non-paradoxical derivation paradoxical. Chapter 2 deals (...) with the problem of undergeneration and Chapter 3 concerns the problem of overgeneration. Chapter 2 discusses that Tenant’s diagnosis of the counterexample which applies CR−rule and causes the undergeneration problem is not correct and presents a solution to the problem of undergeneration. Chapter 3 argues that Tennant’s diagnosis of the counterexample raising the overgeneration problem is wrong and provides a solution to the problem. Finally, Chapter 4 addresses what should be explicated in order for RND to be a proof-theoretic solution to the paradoxes. (shrink)

This thesis is about the nature of proofs in mathematics as it is practiced, contrasting the informal proofs found in practice with formal proofs in formal systems. In the first chapter I present a new argument against the Formalist-Reductionist view that informal proofs are justified as rigorous and correct by corresponding to formal counterparts. The second chapter builds on this to reject arguments from Gödel's paradox and incompleteness theorems to the claim that mathematics is inherently inconsistent, basing my objections on (...) the complexities of the process of formalisation. Chapter 3 looks into the relationship between proofs and the development of the mathematical concepts that feature in them. I deploy Waismann's notion of open texture in the case of mathematical concepts, and discuss both Lakatos and Kneebone's dialectical philosophies of mathematics. I then argue that we can apply work from conceptual engineering to the relationship between formal and informal mathematics. The fourth chapter argues for the importance of mathematical knowledge-how and emphasises the primary role of the activity of proving in securing mathematical knowledge. In the final chapter I develop an account of mathematical knowledge based on virtue epistemology, which I argue provides a better view of proofs and mathematical rigour. (shrink)

Proof nets provide abstract counterparts to sequent proofs modulo rule permutations; the idea being that if two proofs have the same underlying proof-net, they are in essence the same proof. Providing a convincing proof-net counterpart to proofs in the classical sequent calculus is thus an important step in understanding classical sequent calculus proofs. By convincing, we mean that there should be a canonical function from sequent proofs to proof nets, it should be possible to check (...) the correctness of a net in polynomial time, every correct net should be obtainable from a sequent calculus proof, and there should be a cut-elimination procedure which preserves correctness.Previous attempts to give proof-net-like objects for propositional classical logic have failed at least one of the above conditions. In Richard McKinley [22], the author presented a calculus of proof nets satisfying and ; the paper defined a sequent calculus corresponding to expansion nets but gave no explicit demonstration of . That sequent calculus, called LK⁎LK⁎ in this paper, is a novel one-sided sequent calculus with both additively and multiplicatively formulated disjunction rules. In this paper [22]), we give a full proof of for expansion nets with respect to LK⁎LK⁎, and in addition give a cut-elimination procedure internal to expansion nets – this makes expansion nets the first notion of proof-net for classical logic satisfying all four criteria. (shrink)

This book introduces students to the art and craft of writing proofs, beginning with the basics of writing proofs and logic, and continuing on with more in-depth issues and examples of creating proofs in different parts of mathematics, as well as introducing proofs-of-correctness for algorithms. The creation of proofs is covered for theorems in both discrete and continuous mathematics, and in difficulty ranging from elementary to beginning graduate level. Just beyond the standard introductory courses on calculus, theorems and proofs (...) become central to mathematics. Students often find this emphasis difficult and new. This book is a guide to understanding and creating proofs. It explains the standard "moves" in mathematical proofs: direct computation, expanding definitions, proof by contradiction, proof by induction, as well as choosing notation and strategies. (shrink)

In the first chapter, we discuss Dummett’s idea that the notion of truth arises from the one of the correctness of an assertion. We argue that, in a first-order language, the need of defining truth in terms of the notion of satisfaction, which is yielded by the presence of quantifiers, is structurally analogous to the need of a notion of truth as distinct from the one of correctness of an assertion. In the light of the analogy between predicates (...) in Frege and open formulas in Tarksi, we concentrate on the semantic status of predicates. We register a dual attitude of Dummett towards Frege’s ascription of reference to predicates. On the one it is needed to endow quantifiers with their appropriate meaning. On the other hand, the introduction of concepts, as semantic correlate of predicates, smuggles a realist flavor in the overall semantic picture. In concluding the excursus (and with it the chapter), we stress Dummett’s will of developing a semantic picture free from this realist trait. In the second chapter, we present the idea of a proof-theoretic semantics. As for Frege true sentences denotes the truth-value True, so here closed' (i.e. categorical) valid argumentations denotes proofs. If a language contains implication-like operators, in order to characterize the condition of validity of a closed argumentation one has to introduce a notion of validity applying to ‘open’ (i.e. hypothetical) argumentations. We argue that this problem is analogous to the one posed by quantifiers in Frege-Tarksi’s style semantics. That is, implication forces one to introduce notion of validity for argumentations, which is more substantial than the correctness of the assertion of their conclusions. As we saw, the corresponding claim in the truth-based approach—that quantifiers require one to introduce a notion of truth, which is more substantial than the one of an assertion being correct—was the source of realism. Hence, Dummett proposes to reduce the semantic contribution of open argumentations to the one of their ‘closed instances’. In the truth-based perspective, this would correspond to the denial of the need of introducing concepts as the semantic correlates of predicates. We argue that Dummett’s fear, that an irreducible notion of function (represented by the need of ascribing validity to open argumentations) would lead to realism, turns out to be ill-founded. In the third chapter, we discuss the role played by the notion of truth in the anti-realist account. The notion of truth is what the anti-realist needs to cope with the so-called paradox of deduction. The analysis of the paradox yields to distinguishing between the truth of a sentence and the truth of a sentence being recognized. In terms of these conceptual couple, we reconsider the relationship between truth and assertion in an anti-realist perspective. Grounds are provided for a thesis (which was already advanced in chapter two), according to which the notion of the assertion of a sentence being correct is primarily connected only with the canonical means of establishing a sentence. The possibility of establishing a sentence by indirect means is conceptually dependent on the practice of establishing logical relationship of dependence among sentences. That is, the notion of a closed valid non-canonical argumentation is of any theoretical relevance only in presence of a notion of validity applying to open argumentations. In the fourth chapter, we discuss the possibility of characterizing in the proof-theoretic-semantics a notion of refutation. We develop an original characterization of refutations starting from an informal inductive specification of the condition of refutations of logically complex sentences. A sub-structural logic, called dual-intuitionistic logic, stands to this notion in the same relationship in which intuitionistic logic stands to the notion of proof so far consdered. All notions developed in chapter 2 have their corresponding (dual) ones in the framework developed. In particular, the distinctions canonical/non-canonical and closed/open argumentations. In the refutation based perspective, elimination rules have priority over introductions and the (only) assumption over the (many) conclusions. In the conclusions, we indicate the ingredients that an anti-realist approach to meaning should incorporate, in order to avoid the difficulties we registered. The core of an alternative view is a different conception of the relationship between categorical and hypothetical notions, in which the validity of open argumentations is not reduced to that of their instances, but rather it is directly defined. As a limit case, one would get a notion of validity applying to closed argumentations. (shrink)

In the present paper, the Fregean conception of proof-theoretic semantics that I developed elsewhere will be revised so as to better reflect the different roles played by open and closed derivations. I will argue that such a conception can deliver a semantic analysis of languages containing paradoxical expressions provided some of its basic tenets are liberalized. In particular, the notion of function underlying the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov explanation of implication should be understood as admitting functions to be partial. As argued in (...) previous work, the correctness of an inference rule should not be defined in terms of transmission of provability, but rather should be grounded on weaker principles, which I show that are motivated by consideration about the content of the inversion principle. In the conclusion, I briefly address the issue of compositionality, arguing that the violation of compositionality induced by paradoxes are no worse than others that are regarded, at least by Dummett, as wholly unproblematic. (shrink)

This work provides proof-search algorithms and automated counter-model extraction for a class of STIT logics. With this, we answer an open problem concerning syntactic decision procedures and cut-free calculi for STIT logics. A new class of cut-free complete labelled sequent calculi G3LdmL^m_n, for multi-agent STIT with at most n-many choices, is introduced. We refine the calculi G3LdmL^m_n through the use of propagation rules and demonstrate the admissibility of their structural rules, resulting in auxiliary calculi Ldm^m_nL. In the single-agent case, (...) we show that the refined calculi Ldm^m_nL derive theorems within a restricted class of (forestlike) sequents, allowing us to provide proof-search algorithms that decide single-agent STIT logics. We prove that the proof-search algorithms are correct and terminate. (shrink)

We present a novel way of using proof nets for the multimodal Lambek calculus, which provides a general treatment of both the unary and binary connectives. We also introduce a correctness criterion which is valid for a large class of structural rules and prove basic soundness, completeness and cut elimination results. Finally, we will present a correctness criterion for the original Lambek calculus Las an instance of our general correctness criterion.

Prawitz has recently developed a theory of epistemic grounding that differs in many respects from his earlier semantics of arguments and proofs. An innovative approach to inferences yields a new conception of the intertwinement of the notions of valid inference and proof. We aim at singling out three reasons that may have led Prawitz to the ground-theoretic turn, i.e.: a better order in the explanation of the relation between valid inferences and proofs; a notion of valid inference based on (...) which valid inferences and proofs are recognisable as such; a reconstruction of the deductive activity that makes inferences capable of yielding justification per se. These topics are discussed by Prawitz with reference to a very general and ancient question: why and how correct deduction has the epistemic power to compel us to accept its conclusions, provided its premises are justified? We conclude by remarking that, in spite of some improvements, the ground-theoretic approach shares with the previous one a problem of vacuous validity which, as Prawitz himself points out, blocks in both cases a satisfactory explanation of epistemic compulsion. (shrink)

The notion of proof is central to mathematics yet it is one of the most difficult aspects of the subject to teach and master. In particular, undergraduate mathematics students often experience difficulties in understanding and constructing proofs. Understanding Mathematical Proof describes the nature of mathematical proof, explores the various techniques that mathematicians adopt to prove their results, and offers advice and strategies for constructing proofs. It will improve students’ ability to understand proofs and construct correct proofs of (...) their own. The first chapter of the text introduces the kind of reasoning that mathematicians use when writing their proofs and gives some example proofs to set the scene. The book then describes basic logic to enable an understanding of the structure of both individual mathematical statements and whole mathematical proofs. It also explains the notions of sets and functions and dissects several proofs with a view to exposing some of the underlying features common to most mathematical proofs. The remainder of the book delves further into different types of proof, including direct proof, proof using contrapositive, proof by contradiction, and mathematical induction. The authors also discuss existence and uniqueness proofs and the role of counter examples. (shrink)

In the paper A non-implication between fragments of Martin’s Axiom related to a property which comes from Aronszajn trees , Proposition 2.7 is not true. To avoid this error and correct Proposition 2.7, the definition of the property is changed. In Yorioka [1], all proofs of lemmas and theorems but Lemma 6.9 are valid about this definition without changing the proofs. We give a new statement and a new proof of Lemma 6.9.

ABSTRACT In this paper we define two logics, KLn and BLn, and present tableau-based decision procedures for both. KLn is a temporal logic of knowledge. Thus, in addition to the usual connectives of linear discrete temporal logic, it contains a set of unary modal connectives for representing the knowledge possessed by agents. The logic BLn is somewhat similar; it is a temporal logic that contains connectives for representing the beliefs of agents. In addition to a complete formal definition of the (...) two logics and their decision procedures, the paper includes a brief review of their applications in AI and mainstream computer science, correctness proofs for the decision procedures, a number of worked examples illustrating the decision procedures, and some pointers to further work. (shrink)

In this paper it is exactly proved that the standard transformations of the three-dimensional (3D) vectors of the electric and magnetic fields E and B are not relativistically correct transformations. Thence the 3D vectors E and B are not well-defined quantities in the 4D space-time and, contrary to the general belief, the usual Maxwell equations with the 3D E and B are not in agreement with the special relativity. The 4-vectors E a and B a , as well-defined 4D quantities, (...) are introduced instead of ill-defined 3D E and B. The proof is given in the tensor and the Clifford algebra formalisms. (shrink)

We present an approach in which ancient Greek mathematical proofs by Hippocrates of Chios and Euclid are addressed as a form of (guided) intentional reasoning. Schematically, in a proof, we start with a sentence that works as a premise; this sentence is followed by another, the conclusion of what we might take to be an inferential step. That goes on until the last conclusion is reached. Guided by the text, we go through small inferential steps; in each one, we (...) go through an autonomous reasoning process linking the premise to the conclusion. The reasoning process is accompanied by a metareasoning process. Metareasoning gives rise to a feeling-knowing of correctness. In each step/cycle of the proof, we have a feeling-knowing of correctness. Overall, we reach a feeling of correctness for the whole proof. We suggest that this approach allows us to address the issues of how a proof functions, for us, as an enabler to ascertain the correctness of its argument and how we ascertain this correctness. (shrink)

In his Grundgesetze, §32, Frege launched the idea that the meaning of a sentence is given by its truth condition, or, in his particular version, the condition under which it will be a name of the True. This, indeed, was only one of the many roles in which truth has to serve within the Fregean system. In particular, truth is an absolute notion in the sense that bivalence holds: every Gedanke is either true or false, in complete independence of any (...) conative activity, whether by God or man. Thus various epistemological notions, such as the correctness of an assertion made, or judgement passed, are reducible to this absolute notion of truth: an assertion made through the utterance of a declarative sentence is correct when the proposition expressed by the sentence in question is true. Given this absolute status of truth it is not surprising that Frege is of the opinion that truth is a sui generis notion which has to be left unanalyzed and, indeed, which is indefinable. (shrink)

The author analyzes proof and argumentation as a form of appeal to a scientific community with deep ethical meaning. He presents proof primarily as an effort to persuade a scientific community rather than a search for true knowledge, as an instrument by which responsibility is taken for the correctness of the thesis being proved, which usually originates in a sudden flash of insight.

Some sufficient conditions on a Symmetric Monoidal Closed category K are obtained such that a diagram in a free SMC category generated by the set A of atoms commutes if and only if all its interpretations in K are commutative. In particular, the category of vector spaces on any field satisfies these conditions . Instead of diagrams, pairs of derivations in Intuitionistic Multiplicative Linear logic can be considered . Two derivations of the same sequent are equivalent if and only if (...) all their interpretations in K are equal. In fact, the assignment of values to atoms is defined constructively for each pair of derivations. Taking into account a mistake in R. Voreadou's proof of the “abstract coherence theorem” found by the author, it was necessary to modify her description of the class of non-commutative diagrams in SMC categories; our proof of S. Mac Lane conjecture also proves the correctness of the modified description. (shrink)

Abstract: Throughout this paper, by representing some paradoxes and their



associated proofs and arguments, we try to show the cases which proving



some assertions doesn’t conclude the truth of them . In the next step, we



try to find out Which proofs could be considered as reliable in a way that it



shows the Truth of their related assertion, specially We claim that math-



metical proofs could be considered as reliable ones in this sense.



Nevertheless, we claim that the validation of the previous assertion (...) is



comparable to validation of Church Thesis in Computability Theory. So, we



could use it and we consider these proofs as reliable ones but we should be



doubtful about their truth. At last we give a possible explanation for this



subject (based on local arguments and global arguments, the concepts which



we introduce them throughout this paper), and we investigate the validity of this



explanation. What we should bold it here is: In this approach we know the proofs



in these paradoxes as correct proofs, but the point which we want to stress on that



would be: the proof doesn’t show



the truth.







. (shrink)

A Transition to Proof: An Introduction to Advanced Mathematics describes writing proofs as a creative process. There is a lot that goes into creating a mathematical proof before writing it. Ample discussion of how to figure out the "nuts and bolts'" of the proof takes place: thought processes, scratch work and ways to attack problems. Readers will learn not just how to write mathematics but also how to do mathematics. They will then learn to communicate mathematics effectively. (...) The text emphasizes the creativity, intuition, and correct mathematical exposition as it prepares students for courses beyond the calculus sequence. The author urges readers to work to define their mathematical voices. This is done with style tips and strict "mathematical do’s and don’ts", which are presented in eye-catching "text-boxes" throughout the text. The end result enables readers to fully understand the fundamentals of proof. Features: The text is aimed at transition courses preparing students to take analysis Promotes creativity, intuition, and accuracy in exposition The language of proof is established in the first two chapters, which cover logic and set theory Includes chapters on cardinality and introductory topology. (shrink)

A proof P of a theorem T is transferable when a typical expert can become convinced of T solely on the basis of their prior knowledge and the information contained in P. Easwaran has argued that transferability is a constraint on acceptable proof. Meanwhile, a proof P is fixable when it’s possible for other experts to correct any mistakes P contains without having to develop significant new mathematics. Habgood-Coote and Tanswell have observed that some acceptable proofs are (...) both fixable and in need of fixing, in the sense that they contain nontrivial mistakes. The claim that acceptable proofs must be transferable seems quite plausible. The claim that some acceptable proofs need fixing seems plausible too. Unfortunately, these attractive suggestions stand in tension with one another. I argue that the transferability requirement is the problem. Acceptable proofs need only satisfy a weaker requirement I call “corrigibility”. I explain why, despite appearances, the corrigibility standard is preferable to stricter alternatives. (shrink)

This radical, profoundly scholarly book explores the purposes and nature of proof in a range of historical settings. It overturns the view that the first mathematical proofs were in Greek geometry and rested on the logical insights of Aristotle by showing how much of that view is an artefact of nineteenth-century historical scholarship. It documents the existence of proofs in ancient mathematical writings about numbers and shows that practitioners of mathematics in Mesopotamian, Chinese and Indian cultures knew how to (...) prove the correctness of algorithms, which are much more prominent outside the limited range of surviving classical Greek texts that historians have taken as the paradigm of ancient mathematics. It opens the way to providing the first comprehensive, textually based history of proof. (shrink)

A structure which generalizes formulas by including substitution terms is used to represent proofs in classical logic. These structures, called expansion trees, can be most easily understood as describing a tautologous substitution instance of a theorem. They also provide a computationally useful representation of classical proofs as first-class values. As values they are compact and can easily be manipulated and transformed. For example, we present an explicit transformations between expansion tree proofs and cut-free sequential proofs. A theorem prover which represents (...) proofs using expansion trees can use this transformation to present its proofs in more human-readable form. Also a very simple computation on expansion trees can transform them into Craig-style linear reasoning and into interpolants when they exist. We have chosen a sublogic of the Simple Theory of Types for our classical logic because it elegantly represents substitutions at all finite types through the use of the typed -calculus. Since all the proof-theoretic results we shall study depend heavily on properties of substitutions, using this logic has allowed us to strengthen and extend prior results: we are able to prove a strengthen form of the firstorder interpolation theorem as well as provide a correct description of Skolem functions and the Herbrand Universe. The latter are not straightforward generalization of their first-order definitions. (shrink)

I propose and defend a proof-based account of legal exceptions. The basic thought is that the characteristic behaviour of exceptions is to be explained in terms of the distinction, relative to some given decision-type C in some decision-making context, between two classes of relevant facts: those that may, and those that may not, remain uncertain if a token decision C is to count as correctly made. The former is the class of exceptions. A fact F is an exception relative (...) to some decision-type C, I claim, if (i) the ascertainment of F is sufficient for a token decision C not to count as correctly made, and (ii) the ascertainment of the negation of F is not necessary for a token decision C to count as correctly made. I also recuperate, reconstruct and discuss some of HLA Hart’s early views on defeasible judicial decisions. These two projects are closely connected: the latter is a vehicle for the former. (shrink)

Validity, the central concept of the so-called ‘proof-theoretic semantics’ is described as correctly applying to the arguments that denote proofs. In terms of validity, I propose an anti-realist characterization of the notions of truth and correct assertion, at the core of which is the idea that valid arguments may fail to be recognized as such. The proposed account is compared with Dummett’s and Prawitz’s views on the matter.

In this note the proof-theoretic ordinal of the well-ordering principle for the normal functions \ on ordinals is shown to be equal to the least fixed point of \. Moreover corrections to the previous paper are made.

The traditional standard theory of quantum mechanics is unable to solve the spin–statistics problem, i.e. to justify the utterly important “Pauli Exclusion Principle” but by the adoption of the complex standard relativistic quantum field theory. In a recent paper :858–873, 2015) we presented a proof of the spin–statistics problem in the nonrelativistic approximation on the basis of the “Conformal Quantum Geometrodynamics”. In the present paper, by the same theory the proof of the spin–statistics theorem is extended to the (...) relativistic domain in the general scenario of curved spacetime. The relativistic approach allows to formulate a manifestly step-by-step Weyl gauge invariant theory and to emphasize some fundamental aspects of group theory in the demonstration. No relativistic quantum field operators are used and the particle exchange properties are drawn from the conservation of the intrinsic helicity of elementary particles. It is therefore this property, not considered in the standard quantum mechanics, which determines the correct spin–statistics connection observed in Nature :858–873, 2015). The present proof of the spin–statistics theorem is simpler than the one presented in Santamato and De Martini :858–873, 2015), because it is based on symmetry group considerations only, without having recourse to frames attached to the particles. Second quantization and anticommuting operators are not necessary. (shrink)

In this paper, I develop a quasi-transcendental argument to justify Kant’s infamous claim “man is evil by nature.” The cornerstone of my reconstruction lies in drawing a systematic distinction between the seemingly identical concepts of “evil disposition” (böseGesinnung) and “propensity to evil” (Hang zumBösen). The former, I argue, Kant reserves to describe the fundamental moral outlook of a single individual; the latter, the moral orientation of the whole species. Moreover, the appellative “evil” ranges over two different types of moral failure: (...) while an “evil disposition” is a failure to realize the good (i.e., to adopt the motive of duty as limiting condition for all one’s desires), an “evil propensity” is a failure to realize the highest good (i.e., to engage in the collective project of transforming the legal order into an ethical community). This correlation between units of moral analysis and types of obligation suggests a way to offer a deduction of the universal propensity on behalf of Kant. It consists in tracing the source of radical evil to the same subjective necessity that gives rise to the doctrine of the highest good. For, at the basis of Kant’s two doctrines lies the same natural dialectic between happiness and morality. While the highest good brings about the critically acceptable resolution of this dialectic, the propensity to evil perpetuates and aggravates it. Instead of connecting happiness and morality in an objective relation, the human will subordinatesmorality to the pursuit of happiness according to the subjective order of association. If this reading is correct, it would explain why prior attempts at a transcendental deduction have failed: interpreters have looked for the key to the deduction in the body of Kant’s text, where it is not to be found, for it is tucked, instead, in the Preface to the first edition. (shrink)