A tough nut for mathematical knowledge management

Authors:
Manfred Kerber;Martin Pollet
Affiliations:
School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England;Fachbereich Informatik, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany
Venue:
MKM'05 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Mathematical Knowledge Management
Year:
2005

Citing 3
Cited 2

On Sets, Types, Fixed Points, and Checkerboards

TABLEAUX '96 Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods
Little Theories

CADE-11 Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automated Deduction: Automated Deduction
An Infrastructure for Intertheory Reasoning

CADE-17 Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Deduction

Restoring Natural Language as a Computerised Mathematics Input Method

Calculemus '07 / MKM '07 Proceedings of the 14th symposium on Towards Mechanized Mathematical Assistants: 6th International Conference
Spreadsheet Interaction with Frames: Exploring a Mathematical Practice

Calculemus '09/MKM '09 Proceedings of the 16th Symposium, 8th International Conference. Held as Part of CICM '09 on Intelligent Computer Mathematics

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this contribution we address two related questions. Firstly, we want to shed light on the question how to use a representation formalism to represent a given problem. Secondly, we want to find out how different formalizations are related and in particular how it is possible to check that one formalization entails another. The latter question is a tough nut for mathematical knowledge management systems, since it amounts to the question, how a system can recognize that a solution to a problem is already available, although possibly in disguise. As our starting point we take McCarthy’s 1964 mutilated checkerboard challenge problem for proof procedures and compare some of its different formalizations.