Since the proof of the four color theorem in 1976, computer-generated proofs have become a reality in mathematics and computer science. During the last decade, we have seen formal proofs using verified proof assistants being used to verify the validity of such proofs.
During the last decade, we have seen an increasing use of verified proof assistants to create formally verified computer-generated proofs. This has been a success story, and it has resulted in a plethora of formalizations of mathematical proofs, a list too long to even start mentioning particular instances. , consider the formal proof of the four colour theorem from 2005 @cite_7 .
@cite_7
86012225 2098909266 121484200 2748296057
Many proof assistant libraries contain formalizations of the same mathematical concepts. The concepts are often introduced (defined) in different ways, but the properties that they have, and are in turn formalized, are the same. For the basic concepts, like natural numbers, matching them between libraries is often straightforward, because of mathematical naming conventions. However, for more advanced concepts, finding similar formalizations in different libraries is a non-trivial task even for an expert. In this paper I will discuss the fundamental ideas behind proof assistants: What are they and what is a proof anyway? I give a short history of the main ideas, emphasizing the way they ensure the correctness of the mathematics formalized. I will also briefly discuss the places where proof assistants are used and how we envision their extended use in the future. While being an introduction into the world of proof assistants and the main issues behind them, this paper is also a position paper that pushes the further use of proof assistants. We believe that these systems will become the future of mathematics, where definitions, statements, computations and proofs are all available in a computerized form. An important application is and will be in computer supported modelling and verification of systems. But there is still a long road ahead and I will indicate what we believe is needed for the further proliferation of proof assistants. The Tale of a Brainteaser Francis Guthrie certainly did it, when he coined his innocent little coloring puzzle in 1852. He managed to embarrass successively his mathematician brother, his brother’s professor, Augustus de Morgan, and all of de Morgan’s visitors, who couldn’t solve it; the Royal Society, who only realized ten years later that Alfred Kempe’s 1879 solution was wrong; and the three following generations of mathematicians who couldn’t fix it [19]. Even Appel and Haken’s 1976 triumph [2] had a hint of defeat: they’d had a computer do the proof for them! Perhaps the mathematical controversy around the proof died down with their book [3] and with the elegant 1995 revision [13] by Robertson, Saunders, Seymour, and Thomas. However something was still amiss: both proofs combined a textual argument, which could reasonably be checked by inspection, with computer code that could not. Worse, the empirical evidence provided by running code several times with the same input is weak, as it is blind to the most common cause of “computer” error: programmer error. For some thirty years, computer science has been working out a solution to this problem: formal program proofs. The idea is to write code that describes not only what the machine should do, but also why it should be doing it—a formal proof of correctness. The validity of the proof is an objective mathematical fact that can be checked by a different program, whose own validity can be ascertained empirically because it does run on many inputs. The main technical difficulty is that formal proofs are very difficult to produce, Numerous contributions have been made for some years to allow users to exchange formal proofs between different provers. The main propositions consist in ad hoc pointwise translations, e.g. between HOL Light and Isabelle in the Flyspeck project or uses of more or less complete certificates. We propose in this paper a methodology to combine proofs coming from different theorem provers. This methodology relies on the Dedukti logical framework as a common formalism in which proofs can be translated and combined. To relate the independently developed mathematical libraries used in proof assistants, we rely on the structuring features offered by FoCaLiZe, in particular parameterized modules and inheritance to build a formal library of transfer theorems called MathTransfer. We finally illustrate this methodology on the Sieve of Eratosthenes, which we prove correct using HOL and Coq in combination.