Refine
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Other (1)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Argumentation (1)
- Beweis (1)
- Beweisassistent (1)
- Beweisumgebung (1)
- Coq (1)
- Curry (1)
- Formalismus (1)
- Formalitätsgrad (1)
- Logik (1)
- Mathematikdidaktik (1)
Institute
- Institut für Informatik und Computational Science (2) (remove)
In this thesis we introduce the concept of the degree of formality. It is directed against a dualistic point of view, which only distinguishes between formal and informal proofs. This dualistic attitude does not respect the differences between the argumentations classified as informal and it is unproductive because the individual potential of the respective argumentation styles cannot be appreciated and remains untapped.
This thesis has two parts. In the first of them we analyse the concept of the degree of formality (including a discussion about the respective benefits for each degree) while in the second we demonstrate its usefulness in three case studies. In the first case study we will repair Haskell B. Curry's view of mathematics, which incidentally is of great importance in the first part of this thesis, in light of the different degrees of formality. In the second case study we delineate how awareness of the different degrees of formality can be used to help students to learn how to prove. Third, we will show how the advantages of proofs of different degrees of formality can be combined by the development of so called tactics having a medium degree of formality. Together the three case studies show that the degrees of formality provide a convincing solution to the problem of untapped potential.
Learning how to prove
(2018)
We have developed an alternative approach to teaching computer science students how to prove. First, students are taught how to prove theorems with the Coq proof assistant. In a second, more difficult, step students will transfer their acquired skills to the area of textbook proofs. In this article we present a realisation of the second step. Proofs in Coq have a high degree of formality while textbook proofs have only a medium one. Therefore our key idea is to reduce the degree of formality from the level of Coq to textbook proofs in several small steps. For that purpose we introduce three proof styles between Coq and textbook proofs, called line by line comments, weakened line by line comments, and structure faithful proofs. While this article is mostly conceptional we also report on experiences with putting our approach into practise.