Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:08:29.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PLANS AND PLANNING IN MATHEMATICAL PROOFS

Part of: Philosophical aspects of logic and foundations General and miscellaneous specific topics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2020

YACIN HAMAMI  and
REBECCA LEA MORRIS
YACIN HAMAMI
Affiliation:
CENTRE FOR LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSELBRUSSELSB-1050, BELGIUM E-mail: yacin.hamami@gmail.com
REBECCA LEA MORRIS
Affiliation:
INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR E-mail: email@rebeccaleamorris.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In practice, mathematical proofs are most often the result of careful planning by the agents who produced them. As a consequence, each mathematical proof inherits a plan in virtue of the way it is produced, a plan which underlies its “architecture” or “unity.” This paper provides an account of plans and planning in the context of mathematical proofs. The approach adopted here consists in looking for these notions not in mathematical proofs themselves, but in the agents who produced them. The starting point is to recognize that to each mathematical proof corresponds a proof activity which consists of a sequence of deductive inferences—i.e., a sequence of epistemic actions—and that any written mathematical proof is only a report of its corresponding proof activity. The main idea to be developed is that the plan of a mathematical proof is to be conceived and analyzed as the plan of the agent(s) who carried out the corresponding proof activity. The core of the paper is thus devoted to the development of an account of plans and planning in the context of proof activities. The account is based on the theory of planning agency developed by Michael Bratman in the philosophy of action. It is fleshed out by providing an analysis of the notions of intention—the elementary components of plans—and practical reasoning—the process by which plans are constructed—in the context of proof activities. These two notions are then used to offer a precise characterization of the desired notion of plan for proof activities. A fruitful connection can then be established between the resulting framework and the recent theme of modularity in mathematics introduced by Jeremy Avigad. This connection is exploited to yield the concept of modular presentations of mathematical proofs which has direct implications for how to write and present mathematical proofs so as to deliver various epistemic benefits. The account is finally compared to the technique of proof planning developed by Alan Bundy and colleagues in the field of automated theorem proving. The paper concludes with some remarks on how the framework can be used to provide an analysis of understanding and explanation in the context of mathematical proofs.

Keywords

mathematical proofproof planplanning agencymathematical practice

MSC classification

Primary: 00A30: Philosophy of mathematics
Secondary: 00A35: Methodology of mathematics, didactics 03A05: Philosophical and critical
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 1030 - 1065
Check for updates
Copyright
© Association for Symbolic Logic 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Avigad, J. (2006). Mathematical method and proof. Synthese, 153(1), 105–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avigad, J. (2020). Modularity in mathematics. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 13(1), 47–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avigad, J. & Morris, R. L. (2016). Character and object. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(3), 480–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedford, E. & Smillie, J. (1998). Polynomial diffeomorphisms of ${\mathbf{C}}^2$ : VI. Connectivity of $J$ . Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 148(2), 695–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P. (2014). What is inference? Philosophical Studies, 169(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Reissued by CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA, 1999 (citations are to the latter edition).Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (2014). Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundy, A. (1988). The use of explicit plans to guide inductive proofs. In Lusk, E. and Overbeek, R., editors. 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 310. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundy, A. (1991). A science of reasoning. In Lassez, J.-L. and Plotkin, G., editors. Computational Logic: Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 178–198.Google Scholar
Bundy, A. (1996). Proof planning. In Drabble, B., editor. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems. Menlo Park, CA, pp. 261–267.Google Scholar
Bundy, A., Basin, D., Hutter, D., & Ireland, A. (2005). Rippling: Meta-Level Guidance for Mathematical Reasoning. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundy, A., van Harmelen, F., Horn, C., & Smaill, A. (1990). The OYSTER-CLAM system. In Stickel, M. E., editor. 10th International Conference on Automated Deduction. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 449. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 647–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemla, K. & Virbel, J. (2015). Texts, Textual Acts and the History of Science. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corcoran, J. (1989). Argumentations and logic. Argumentation, 3(1), 17–43.Google Scholar
Dixon, L. & Fleuriot, J. (2003). Isa Planner: A prototype proof planner in Isabelle. In Baader, F., editor. Automated Deduction–CADE-19. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2741. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, CADE, pp. 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, C. & Pandharipande, R. (2003). Hodge integrals, partition matrices, and the ${\lambda}_g$ conjecture. Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 157(1), 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (2012). And so on…: Reasoning with infinite diagrams. Synthese, 186(1), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folina, J. (2018). Towards a better understanding of mathematical understanding. In Piazza, M. and Pulcini, G., editors. Truth, Existence and Explanation. Cham: Springer, pp. 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraleigh, J. B. (2003). A First Course in Abstract Algebra (seventh edition). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Ganesalingam, M. & Gowers, T. (2017). A fully automatic theorem prover with human-style output. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 58(2), 253–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gowers, T. (2002). Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamami, Y. (2018). Mathematical inference and logical inference. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 11(4), 665–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamami, Y. (2019). Mathematical rigor and proof. The Review of Symbolic Logic. To appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, G. H., Littlewood, J. E., & Pólya, G. (1934). Inequalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haylock, D. & Cockburn, A. (2008). Understanding Mathematics for Young Children: A Guide for Foundation Stage and Lower Primary Teachers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Ireland, A. (1992). The use of planning critics in mechanizing inductive proofs. In Voronkov, A., editor. International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 624. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 178–189.Google Scholar
Ireland, A. & Bundy, A. (1996). Productive use of failure in inductive proof. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 16(1–2), 79–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamport, L. (1995). How to write a proof. The American Mathematical Monthly, 102(7), 600–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamport, L. (2012). How to write a 21st century proof. Journal of Fixed Point Theory and Applications, 11(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leron, U. (1983). Structuring mathematical proofs. The American Mathematical Monthly, 90(3), 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, E. R. (1978). Understanding understanding mathematics. Cognitive Science, 2(4), 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, R. (1972). Logic for computable functions: Description of a machine implementation. Technical Report STAN-CS-72-288, A.I. Memo 169, Stanford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. L. (2020). Motivated proofs: What they are, why they matter and how to write them. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 13(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1900/1996). Intuition and logic in mathematics. In Ewald, W., editor. From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics (Volumes I and II), Vol. 19. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 1012–1020.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1908). Science et Méthode. Paris: Ernest Flammarion. Translated to English by Francis Maitland as Science and Method. London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1914. (Citations are to translation.)Google Scholar
Pólya, G. (1945). How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pólya, G. (1949). With, or without, motivation. The American Mathematical Monthly, 56(10), 684–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pólya, G. (1954a). Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning: Induction and Analogy in Mathematics, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pólya, G. (1954b). Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning: Patterns of Plausible Inference, Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pólya, G. (1962). Mathematical Discovery: On Understanding, Learning, and Teaching Problem Solving (Two Volumes). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google Scholar
Prawitz, D. (2012). The epistemic significance of valid inference. Synthese, 187(3), 887–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prawitz, D. (2015). Explaining deductive inference. In Wansing, H., editor. Dag Prawitz on Proofs and Meaning. Cham: Springer, pp. 65–100.Google Scholar
Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7(3), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. A. (2000). Proof = guarantee + explanation. In Hölldobler, S., editor. Intellectics and Computational Logic. Applied Logic Series, Vol. 19. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. S. (1993). A type-theoretical alternative to ISWIM, CUCH, OWHY. Theoretical Computer Science, 121(1–2), 411–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. M. (2004). The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class: An Introduction to the Art of Mathematical Inequalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundholm, G. (2012). “Inference versus consequence” revisited: Inference, consequence, conditional, implication. Synthese, 187(3), 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanswell, F. (2019). Go forth and multiply! On actions, instructions and imperatives in mathematical proofs. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J. (2018). Constructive agents. Indagationes Mathematicae, 29(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C. (2014). Comment on Paul Boghossian, “What is inference”. Philosophical Studies, 169(1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar