PLANS AND PLANNING IN MATHEMATICAL PROOFS

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.

[1]  John Corcoran,et al.  Argumentations and logic , 1989 .

[2]  Crispin Wright,et al.  Comment on Paul Boghossian, “What is inference” , 2014 .

[3]  John Alan Robinson.  Proof = Guarantee + Explanation , 2000, Intellectics and Computational Logic.

[4]  Jacques D. Fleuriot,et al.  IsaPlanner: A Prototype Proof Planner in Isabelle , 2003, CADE.

[5]  B. G. Sundholm.  Inference versus Consequence , 1998 .

[6]  Andrew Ireland,et al.  The Use of Planning Critics in Mechanizing Inductive Proofs , 1992, LPAR.

[7]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Rippling - meta-level guidance for mathematical reasoning , 2005, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[8]  Dag Prawitz,et al.  The epistemic significance of valid inference , 2011, Synthese.

[9]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  The Oyster-Clam System , 1990, CADE.

[10]  Paul M. Weichsel,et al.  A first course in abstract algebra , 1966 .

[11]  M. Ganesalingam,et al.  A Fully Automatic Theorem Prover with Human-Style Output , 2016, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[12]  Dag Prawitz,et al.  Explaining Deductive Inference , 2015 .

[13]  George Polya,et al.  Mathematical discovery : on understanding, learning, and teaching problem solving , 1962 .

[14]  Alan Bundy.  Proof Planning , 1996, AIPS.

[15]  Henri Poincaré,et al.  Intuition and Logic in Mathematics. , 1969 .

[16]  Alan Bundy,et al.  A Science of Reasoning , 1991, Computational Logic - Essays in Honor of Alan Robinson.

[17]  P. Campbell.  How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method , 2005 .

[18]  Derek W. Haylock,et al.  Understanding Mathematics for Young Children: A Guide for Foundation Stage and Lower Primary Teachers , 2008 .

[19]  R. Jackson.  Inequalities , 2007, Algebra for Parents.

[20]  Dana S. Scott,et al.  A Type-Theoretical Alternative to ISWIM, CUCH, OWHY , 1993, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Solomon Feferman,et al.  And so on . . . : reasoning with infinite diagrams , 2011, Synthese.

[22]  Jacques Virbel,et al.  Texts, textual acts and the history of science , 2015 .

[23]  Jeremy Avigad,et al.  Mathematical Method and Proof , 2006, Synthese.

[24]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[25]  Timothy Gowers,et al.  Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction , 2002 .

[26]  EDWINA RISSLAND MICHENER,et al.  Understanding Understanding Mathematics , 1978, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  Robin Milner,et al.  Logic for Computable Functions: description of a machine implementation. , 1972 .

[28]  Uri Leron,et al.  Structuring Mathematical Proofs. , 1983 .

[29]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  How to Write a Proof , 1995 .

[30]  R. Pandharipande,et al.  Hodge integrals, partition matrices, and the λ g conjecture , 2003 .

[31]  J. Rotman.  A First Course in Abstract Algebra , 1995 .

[32]  Göran Sundholm.  “Inference versus consequence” revisited: inference, consequence, conditional, implication , 2011, Synthese.

[33]  A. Morton.  Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together , 2015 .

[34]  G. Polya.  With, or Without, Motivation? , 1949 .

[35]  Alan Bundy,et al.  The Use of Explicit Plans to Guide Inductive Proofs , 1988, CADE.

[36]  D. J. H. Garling,et al.  The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class: An Introduction to the Art of Mathematical Inequalities by J. Michael Steele , 2005, Am. Math. Mon..

[37]  Janet Folina,et al.  Towards a Better Understanding of Mathematical Understanding , 2018 .

[38]  Andrew Ireland,et al.  Productive use of failure in inductive proof , 1996, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[39]  Y. Rav.  Why Do We Prove Theorems , 1999 .