DOCSLIB.ORG

Formal Proofs and Refutations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Formal Proofs and Refutations FORMAL PROOFS AND REFUTATIONS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Jesse Alama June, 2009 i C 2009, Jesse Alama All rights reserved. ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. —————————————————— (Grigori Mints) Principal Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. —————————————————— (Solomon Feferman) I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. —————————————————— (Johan van Benthem) I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. —————————————————— (Jeremy Avigad) Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. —————————————————— iii iv ABSTRACT Abstract Two questions drive the dissertation: • What can one discover in a formal mathematical theory? • What more do we know of a mathematical theorem when it has been formally proved than that it is provable? These questions spring from the provocative philosophy of mathematics of Imre Lakatos. They are tackled in two ways: by evaluating the philosophical foundations of Lakatos’s work, and by studying contemporary work in formal mathematics, specifically formal proof checking technology. The dissertation has a technical part and a philosophical part. The first part considers some philosophical problems raised (or brought into focus) by formal mathematical proofs. The second, technical part attempts to answer mathematical questions raised in the first part. The bridge between the two is a formal proof of a famous mathematical result known as Euler’s polyhedron formula, whose history Lakatos has reconstructed and which serves as the central example for his philosophy of mathematics. The aim of the dissertation is to explore some of the philosophical problems suggested by such formalization efforts. The argument of the dissertation has three components. In the first component, I ex- plain how Lakatos’s philosophy of mathematics poses a challenge to formal proof checking technology. The second component is to respond to the challenge by formalizing Euler’s polyhedron formula. Finally, the third component evaluates the technical, formal proof response. The dissertation is timely because, owing to developments in logic and computing in the last half-century, the concept of a formal proof, which used to be at best a model of mathemat- ical argumentation, has become more concrete and practical. It has now become possible to actually formalize significant mathematical proofs. These contemporary developments are a source of problems for a philosophy of mathematics that is sensitive to mathematical practice. This movement within the philosophy of mathematics is to no small degree in- spired by Lakatos’s work. The time is ripe for returning to some of the basic philosophical problems that Lakatos and other philosophers pointed to long ago, and to examine new problems that come from the development of what might be called proof technology, tools for helping mathematicians construct and evaluate proofs. v In chapter 1, I lay out some of the main questions and problems about formal proofs and explain how they are related to central issues within mainstream philosophy, particularly epistemology and philosophy of science. The development of formal proof technology is based on classical 19th and 20th century results in mathematical logic but depends crucially on computers. Chapter 1 also surveys the variety of uses of computers in mathematical practice and discusses the variety of philosophical problems they pose. The next step in the discussion of formal proofs will be a critical evaluation of the philosophy of mathematics of Imre Lakatos. His Proofs and Refutations (1963) attacks formalist philosophies of mathematics. Since much proof technology is to some extent based on or requires a certain formalist view of mathematics, the question naturally arises how Lakatos’s philosophy bears on these developments. Chapter 2 addresses these concerns. I focus also on some epistemological problems suggested by formal proofs, such as the question of defining rigor and the problem of whether and how one improves one’s justification for a mathematical claim through formalization of a proof of it. The cornerstone of Lakatos’s Proofs and Refutations is a history of a particular math- ematical theorem known as Euler’s polyhedron formula, which is a certain geometrical- combinatorial claim with a rather colorful history. I have formalized a proof of this math- ematical result; chapter 3 contains a discussion of the proof and its formalization. Thanks to the work carried out in chapter 3, Euler’s polyhedron formula (understood in a certain abstract or combinatorial way that is explained in chapter 3) is shown to be a first- order consequence a certain first-order theory of sets. Because of the peculiarities of the particular proof technology with which the formal proof was carried out, the theory of sets that is used is much stronger than what is intuitively required for Euler’s theorem. A natural proof-theoretic question thereby arises: can one do better? Are the strong assumptions really necessary? In chapter 4, I identify a weaker theory in which to carry out a formal proof Euler’s formula. Also discussed are some formal problems about expressibility problems for combinatorial polyhedra, and related issues. In chapter 5, I return to some of the issues that Lakatos raised in connection with formal proofs in light of the formal work that is carried out in chapter 3. This work provides some resources for taking on the two questions that were initially asked. I show that Lakatos’s philosophy, its strong reservations against ‘formalism’ notwithstanding, applies quite naturally to formal mathematics. vi Acknowledgements First of all, my advisor, Grisha Mints, has been supportive and caring throughout my graduate education. I am thankful for my relationship with him, and for the opportunities he gave me throughout my time at Stanford. My dissertation committee has also been quite helpful. I thank Sol Feferman, Johan van Benthem, and Jeremy Avigad for their support in helping me to grow from a student to a scholar. I would also like to thank those who contributed by giving advice, criticism, and sup- port. My family has been especially important in providing a steady base for me. In addition, the following people have all played their roles, small and large (in no particular order): Tomohiro Hoshi, Tobey Scharding, Paolo Mancosu, Marc Pauly, Krista Lawlor, Ulrich Kohlenbach, Branko Grünbaum, Lauren Hartzell, Valeria de Paiva, Darko Sarenac, Quayshawn Spencer, Alan Woods, Herman Geuvers, Audrey Yap, Heidi Dolamore, Jip Veldman, Boris Moroz, Fernando Ferreira, Henk Barendregt, Alexei Angelides, Bas Spit- ters, Patrick Girard, Elizabeth Coppock, Freek Wiedijk, Maria Taylor, David Fernandez, Stephen Simpson, Marvin Greenberg, Lanier Anderson, Michael Friedman, Robert Solovay, Tyler Greene, Peter Koepke, Conor Mayo-Wilson, Michael Beeson, Henry Towsner, Alistair Isaac, Mark Crimmins, Eric Pacuit. I am grateful for all of you. vii Contents Abstract . v Acknowledgements . vii 1 Introduction . 0 2 Formal Proofs in Mathematics . 4 2.1 Introduction . 4 2.2 Formal Proof Technology: Three Strands . 4 2.3 Early Growth of Formal Proof Technology . 6 2.4 Contemporary Developments in Formal Proof Technology . 8 2.4.1 The QED Project . 9 2.5 Digression: Computers in Mathematics . 10 2.6 Formal Proof Technology: A Philosophical Error? . 15 3 A Lakatosian Challenge . 18 3.1 Introduction . 18 3.1.1 Digression: the problem of interpreting Proofs and Refutations . 19 3.2 Main Features of Lakatos’s Philosophy of Mathematics . 21 3.2.1 The method of proofs and refutations . 22 3.2.2 Lakatos on proof (continued) . 24 3.2.3 Digression: Lakatos and Pólya . 27 3.3 Summary of Lakatos scholarship . 28 3.4 Some Basic Philosophical Issues in Lakatos’s Work . 33 3.5 Lakatos and Mathematical Skepticism . 35 3.5.1 Fallibilism in mathematics . 40 3.6 A Lakatosian Challenge . 41 4 A Formal Proof of Euler’s Polyhedron Formula . 44 4.1 Introduction . 44 4.2 A Brief History of Euler’s Polyhedron Formula . 44 4.3 Poincaré’s Proof of Euler’s Polyhedron Formula . 47 4.4 The Formalization . 50 4.4.1 Main formalizations . 50 4.4.1.1 The rank+nullity theorem . 51 4.4.1.2 The vector space of subsets of a set based on symmetric difference . 53 4.4.1.3 Polyhedra . 54 4.5 Discussion . 55 4.5.1 Definition of polyhedron and being a homology sphere . 55 4.5.1.1 Algebraic topological definition of polyhedron . 56 4.5.1.2 Simple connectedness and homology spheres . 60 viii 4.5.2 A proof-theoretic question . 62 4.5.3 Streamlining the formalization . 64 4.6 Conclusion and Further Work . 65 5 Metamathematical Problems about Polyhedra . 68 5.1 Introduction . 68 5.2 Expressibility Problems for Combinatorial Polyhedra . 68 5.2.1 Being a homology sphere . 69 5.2.2 Eulerianness . 71 5.2.2.1 Extending the result: euler characteristic and general-dimensional polyhedra . 73 5.2.2.2 Monadic second-order logic . 77 5.2.2.3 Expressibility using an equicardinality generalized quantifier . 80 5.2.2.4 Expressibility in dyadic existential second-order logic . 82 5.2.3 Convexity ......................................................... 83 5.3 Formal Theories of Polyhedra . 84 5.3.1 Steinitz-Rademacher polyhedral complexes . 84 5.3.1.1 Digression: expressibility of eulerianness in the class of polyhedral complexes .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 1 Elementary Logic
    Principles of Mathematics (Math 2450) A®Ë@ Õæ Aë áÖ ß @.X.@ 2017-2018 ÈðB@ É®Ë@ Chapter 1 Elementary Logic The study of logic is the study of the principles and methods used in distinguishing valid argu- ments from those that are not valid. The aim of this chapter is to help the student to understand the principles and methods used in each step of a proof. The starting point in logic is the term statement (or proposition) which is used in a technical sense. We introduce a minimal amount of mathematical logic which lies behind the concept of proof. In mathematics and computer science, as well as in many places in everyday life, we face the problem of determining whether something is true or not. Often the decision is easy. If we were to say that 2 + 3 = 4, most people would immediately say that the statement was false. If we were to say 2 + 2 = 4, then undoubtedly the response would be \of course" or \everybody knows that". However, many statements are not so clear. A statement such as \the sum of the first n odd integers is equal to n2" in addition to meeting with a good deal of consternation, might be greeted with a response of \Is that really true?" or \why?" This natural response lies behind one of the most important concepts of mathematics, that of proof. 1.1 Statements and their connectives When we prove theorems in mathematics, we are demonstrating the truth of certain statements. We therefore need to start our discussion of logic with a look at statements, and at how we recognize certain statements as true or false.
    [Show full text]
  • Snake Lemma - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Snake lemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_lemma Snake lemma From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The snake lemma is a tool used in mathematics, particularly homological algebra, to construct long exact sequences. The snake lemma is valid in every abelian category and is a crucial tool in homological algebra and its applications, for instance in algebraic topology. Homomorphisms constructed with its help are generally called connecting homomorphisms. Contents 1 Statement 2 Explanation of the name 3 Construction of the maps 4 Naturality 5 In popular culture 6 See also 7 References 8 External links Statement In an abelian category (such as the category of abelian groups or the category of vector spaces over a given field), consider a commutative diagram: where the rows are exact sequences and 0 is the zero object. Then there is an exact sequence relating the kernels and cokernels of a, b, and c: Furthermore, if the morphism f is a monomorphism, then so is the morphism ker a → ker b, and if g' is an epimorphism, then so is coker b → coker c. Explanation of the name To see where the snake lemma gets its name, expand the diagram above as follows: 1 of 4 28/11/2012 01:58 Snake lemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_lemma and then note that the exact sequence that is the conclusion of the lemma can be drawn on this expanded diagram in the reversed "S" shape of a slithering snake. Construction of the maps The maps between the kernels and the maps between the cokernels are induced in a natural manner by the given (horizontal) maps because of the diagram's commutativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Schemes for the Modified Buckley-Leverett Equation
    CENTRAL SCHEMES FOR THE MODIFIED BUCKLEY-LEVERETT EQUATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Ying Wang, B.Sc., M.Sc., M.A.S. Graduate Program in Mathematics The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Professor Chiu-Yen Kao, Advisor Professor Avner Friedman Professor Fei-Ran Tian c Copyright by Ying Wang July, 2010 ABSTRACT In fluid dynamics, the Buckley-Leverett (BL) equation is a transport equation used to model two-phase flow in porous media. One application is secondary recovery by water-drive in oil reservoir simulation. The modified Buckley-Leverett (MBL) equation differs from the classical BL equation by including a balanced diffusive- dispersive combination. The dispersive term is a third order mixed derivatives term, which models the dynamic effects in the pressure difference between the two phases. The classical BL equation gives a monotone water saturation profile for any Rie- mann problem; on the contrast, when the dispersive parameter is large enough, the MBL equation delivers non-monotone water saturation profile for certain Riemann problems as suggested by the experimental observations. In this thesis, we first show that the solution of the finite interval [0,L] boundary value problem converges to that of the half-line [0, +∞) problem for the MBL equation as L → +∞. This result provides a justification for the use of the finite interval boundary value problem in numerical studies for the half line problem. Furthermore, we extend the classical central schemes for the hyperbolic conserva- tion laws to solve the MBL equation which is of pseudo-parabolic type.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Hierarchical Math Library Organization
    A Proof-Theoretic Approach to Hierarchical Math Library Organization Kamal Aboul-Hosn and Terese Damhøj Andersen Department of Computer Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract. The relationship between theorems and lemmas in mathe- matical reasoning is often vague. No system exists that formalizes the structure of theorems in a mathematical library. Nevertheless, the deci- sions we make in creating lemmas provide an inherent hierarchical struc- ture to the statements we prove. In this paper, we develop a formal system that organizes theorems based on scope. Lemmas are simply the- orems with a local scope. We develop a representation of proofs that captures scope and present a set of proof rules to create and reorganize the scopes of theorems and lemmas. The representation and rules al- low systems for formalized mathematics to more accurately reflect the natural structure of mathematical knowledge. 1 Introduction The relationship between theorems and lemmas in mathematical reasoning is often vague. What makes a statement a lemma, but not a theorem? One might say that a theorem is “more important,” but what does it mean for one statement to be “more important” than another? When writing a proof for a theorem, we often create lemmas as a way to break down the complex proof, so perhaps we expect the proofs of lemmas to be shorter than the proofs of theorems. We also create lemmas when we have a statement that we do not expect to last in readers’ minds, i.e., it is not the primary result of our work.
    [Show full text]
  • Formal Proof : Understanding, Writing and Evaluating Proofs, February 2010
    Formal Proof Understanding, writing and evaluating proofs David Meg´ıas Jimenez´ (coordinador) Robert Clariso´ Viladrosa Amb la col·laboracio´ de M. Antonia` Huertas Sanchez´ PID 00154272 The texts and images contained in this publication are subject –except where indicated to the contrary– to an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license (BY-NC-ND) v.3.0 Spain by Creative Commons. You may copy, publically distribute and transfer them as long as the author and source are credited (FUOC. Fundacion´ para la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Open University of Catalonia Foundation)), neither the work itself nor derived works may be used for commercial gain. The full terms of the license can be viewed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode © CC-BY-NC-ND • PID 00154272 Formal Proof Table of contents Introduction ................................................... ....... 5 Goals ................................................... ................ 6 1. Defining formal proofs .......................................... 7 2. Anatomy of a formal proof ..................................... 10 3. Tool-supported proofs ........................................... 13 4. Planning formal proofs ......................................... 17 4.1. Identifying the problem . ..... 18 4.2. Reviewing the literature . ....... 18 4.3. Identifying the premises . ..... 19 4.4. Understanding the problem . ... 20 4.5. Formalising the problem . ..... 20 4.6. Selecting a proof strategy . ........ 21 4.7. Developingtheproof ................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Topology of Discrete Strategies∗
    The final version of this paper was published in The International Journal of Robotics Research, 29(7), June 2010, pp. 855–896, by SAGE Publications Ltd, http://online.sagepub.com. c Michael Erdmann On the Topology of Discrete Strategies∗ Michael Erdmann School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] December 2009 Abstract This paper explores a topological perspective of planning in the presence of uncertainty, focusing on tasks specified by goal states in discrete spaces. The paper introduces strategy complexes. A strategy complex is the collection of all plans for attaining all goals in a given space. Plans are like jigsaw pieces. Understanding how the pieces fit together in a strategy complex reveals structure. That structure characterizes the inherent capabilities of an uncertain system. By adjusting the jigsaw pieces in a design loop, one can build systems with desired competencies. The paper draws on representations from combinatorial topology, Markov chains, and polyhedral cones. Triangulating between these three perspectives produces a topological language for describing concisely the capabilities of uncertain systems, analogous to concepts of reachability and controllability in other disciplines. The major nouns in this language are topological spaces. Three key theorems (numbered 1, 11, 20 in the paper) illustrate the sentences in this language: (a) Goal Attainability: There exists a strategy for attaining a particular goal from anywhere in a system if and only if the strategy complex of a slightly modified system is homotopic to a sphere. (b) Full Controllability: A system can move between any two states despite control uncertainty precisely when its strategy complex is homotopic to a sphere of dimension two less than the number of states.
    [Show full text]
  • Lemmas in Olympiad Geometry
    Lemmas In Olympiad Geometry Navneel Singhal July 14, 2016 Geometry is the art of correct reasoning from incorrectly drawn figures. - Henri Poincar´e 1 Introduction Here is a collection of some useful lemmas in geometry, some of them well known, some obscure and some by the author himself. This list of lemmas is also intended to be a list of some easier problems and also as some configurations that frequently appear on contests. Usually these lemmas will be intermediate results that will help you reach the solution in many cases, and maybe even trivialize the problem. These will help you write some really elegant solutions (and will also help you to simplify your bashes in cases of some problems that don't yield easily to synthetic solutions.) So have fun proving these lemmas and using them to the fullest advantage in your Olympiad journey! 2 Some Notations • By (XYZ) we denote the circumcircle of ∆XYZ, by (XY ) the circle with XY as diameter, and by (M; r) the circle with centre M and radius r, the radius being dropped when the context is clear. • We denote H as the orthocentre, O as the circumcentre, G as the centroid, N as the nine-point centre, I as the incentre, Na as the Nagel point and Ge as the Gergonne point of ∆ABC 3 Orthocenter related properties • O and H are isogonal conjugates. • Reflections of the orthocenter over the sides and the midpoints of the sides lie on (ABC). 1 • The O is the orthocenter of the medial triangle. a consequence is that AH=2OM.
    [Show full text]
  • Coquelicot: a User-Friendly Library of Real Analysis for Coq
    Coquelicot: A User-Friendly Library of Real Analysis for Coq Sylvie Boldo, Catherine Lelay and Guillaume Melquiond Abstract. Real analysis is pervasive to many applications, if only because it is a suitable tool for modeling physical or socio-economical systems. As such, its support is warranted in proof assis- tants, so that the users have a way to formally verify mathematical theorems and correctness of critical systems. The Coq system comes with an axiomatization of standard real numbers and a li- brary of theorems on real analysis. Unfortunately, this standard library is lacking some widely used results. For instance, power series are not developed further than their definition. Moreover, the definitions of integrals and derivatives are based on dependent types, which make them especially cumbersome to use in practice. To palliate these inadequacies, we have designed a user-friendly library: Coquelicot. An easier way of writing formulas and theorem statements is achieved by re- lying on total functions in place of dependent types for limits, derivatives, integrals, power series, and so on. To help with the proof process, the library comes with a comprehensive set of theorems that cover not only these notions, but also some extensions such as parametric integrals, two- dimensional differentiability, asymptotic behaviors. It also offers some automation for performing differentiability proofs. Moreover, Coquelicot is a conservative extension of Coq’s standard library and we provide correspondence theorems between the two libraries. We have exercised the library on several use cases: in an exam at university entry level, for the definitions and properties of Bessel functions, and for the solution of the one-dimensional wave equation.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Proofs of Lemmas, Theorems, and Corollaries
    Detailed Proofs of Lemmas, Theorems, and Corollaries Dahua Lin John Fisher CSAIL, MIT CSAIL, MIT A List of Lemmas, Theorems, and Theorem 4. The hierarchically bridging Markov Corollaries chain with bk < 1 for k = 0;:::;K − 1, and fk < 1 for k = 1;:::;K is ergodic. If we write the equilibrium For being self-contained, we list here all the lemmas, distribution in form of (αµ0; β1µ1; : : : ; βK µK ), then theorems, and corollaries in the main paper. (S1) µ0 equals the target distribution µ; (S2) for each k ≥ 1, and y 2 Y , µ (y) is proportional to the total Lemma 1. The joint transition matrix P given by k k + probability of its descendant target states (the target Eq.(1) in the main paper has a stationary distribution states derived by filling all its placeholders); (S3) α, in form of (αµ ; βµ ), if and only if X Y the probability of being at the target level, is given by α−1 = 1 + PK (b ··· b )=(f ··· f ). µX QB = µY ; and µY QF = µX : (1) k=1 0 k−1 1 k Corollary 2. If bk=fk+1 ≤ κ < 1 for each k = Under this condition, we have αb = βf. Further, if 1;:::;K, then α > 1 − κ. both PX and PY are both reversible, then P+ is also reversible, if and only if B Proofs µX (x)QB(x; y) = µY (y)QF (y; x); (2) Here, we provide the proofs of the lemmas and theo- for all x 2 X and y 2 Y . rems presented in the paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Coquelicot: a User-Friendly Library of Real Analysis for Coq Sylvie Boldo, Catherine Lelay, Guillaume Melquiond
    Coquelicot: A User-Friendly Library of Real Analysis for Coq Sylvie Boldo, Catherine Lelay, Guillaume Melquiond To cite this version: Sylvie Boldo, Catherine Lelay, Guillaume Melquiond. Coquelicot: A User-Friendly Library of Real Analysis for Coq. Mathematics in Computer Science, Springer, 2015, 9 (1), pp.41-62. 10.1007/s11786- 014-0181-1. hal-00860648v2 HAL Id: hal-00860648 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00860648v2 Submitted on 18 Feb 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Coquelicot: A User-Friendly Library of Real Analysis for Coq Sylvie Boldo, Catherine Lelay and Guillaume Melquiond Abstract. Real analysis is pervasive to many applications, if only because it is a suitable tool for modeling physical or socio-economical systems. As such, its support is warranted in proof assis- tants, so that the users have a way to formally verify mathematical theorems and correctness of critical systems. The Coq system comes with an axiomatization of standard real numbers and a li- brary of theorems on real analysis. Unfortunately, this standard library is lacking some widely used results. For instance, power series are not developed further than their definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Denying the Antecedent - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Help us provide free content to the world by • LearnLog more in /about create using Wikipediaaccount for research donating today ! • Article Discussion EditDenying this page History the antecedent From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Denying the antecedent is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form: If P , then Q . Navigation Not P . ● Main Page Therefore, not Q . ● Contents Arguments of this form are invalid (except in the rare cases where such an argument also ● Featured content instantiates some other, valid, form). Informally, this means that arguments of this form do ● Current events ● Random article not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true. Interaction The name denying the ● About Wikipedia antecedent derives from the premise "not P ", which denies the 9, 2008 ● Community portal "if" clause of the conditional premise.Lehman, v. on June ● Recent changes Carver One way into demonstrate archivedthe invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with ● Contact Wikipedia Cited true premises06-35176 but an obviously false conclusion. For example: ● Donate to No. If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being. Wikipedia ● Help Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being. Search That argument is obviously bad, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example imagined by Alan Turing in the article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence": “ If each man had a definite set of rules of conduct by which he regulated his life he would be no better than a machine.
    [Show full text]
  • Xxxxxxxxxxxxxmxxxxxxxx
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 297 950 SE 049 425 AUTHOR Kaput, James J. TITLE Information Technology and Mathematics: Opening New Representational Windows. INSTITUTION Educational Technology Center, Cambridge, MA. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. REPORT NO ETC-86-3 PUB DATE Apr 86 NOTE 28p. PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141) -- Reports - Research/Technical (143) -- Collected Works - General (020) EDRS PRICE MFOI/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Cognitive Development; *Cognitive Processes; Cognitive Structures; *Computer Uses in Education; Educational Policy; *Elementary School Mathematics; Elementary Secondary Education; Geometry; *Information Technology; Learning Processes; Mathematics Education; Microcomputers; Problem Solving; Research; *Secondary School Mathematics ABSTRACT Higher order thinking skills are inevitably developed or exercised relative to some discipline. The discipline may be formal or informal, may or may not be represented in a school curriculum, or relate to a wide variety of domains. Moreover, the development or exercise of thinking skills may take place at differing levels of generality. This paper is concerned with how new uses of information technology can profoundly influence the acquisition and application of higher order thinking skills in or near the domain of mathematics. It concentrates on aspects of mathematics that relate to its representational function based on the beliefs that (1) mathematics itself, as a tool of thought and communication, is essentially representational
    [Show full text]