Abstract
Hierarchical proof presentations are ubiquitous within logic and computer science,but have made little impact on mathematics in general.The reasons for this are not currently known,and need to be understood if mathematical knowledge management systems are to gain acceptance in the mathematical community.We report on some initial experiments with three users of a set of web-based hierarchical proofs, which suggest that usability problems could be a factor.In order to better understand these problems we present a theoretical analysis of hierarchical proofs using Cognitive Dimensions [6].The analysis allows us to formulate some concrete hypotheses about the usability of hierarchical proof presentations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
R. Bornat, B. Sufrin,‘Animating Formal Proofs at the Surface:The Jape Proof Calculator,’ The Computer Journal,42(3):177–192,1999
P. Cairns, J. Gow,“On Dynamically Presenting a Topology Course,” First Interna-tional Workshop on Mathematical Knowledge Management,2001.Revised version submitted to Annals of A.I.& Math.,2002
K. Easthaughffe,‘Support for Interactive Theorem Proving:Some Design Princi-ples and Their Application,’ in R. Backhouse (ed.),Workshop on User Interfaces for Theorem Provers,p 96–103,1998
X. Faulkner, Usability Engineering, Palgrave, 2002
T.R.G. Green, A. Blackwell, A tutorial on cognitive dimensions, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/afb21/publications/CDtutSep98_OnlinePDF.pdf
T.R.G. Green, M. Petre,‘Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a “cognitive dimensions ” framework,’ J.Visual Languages and Computing,7:131–174,1996
J. Grundy,‘A Browsable Format for Proof Presentation,’ Math.Universalis, 2, 1996, http://www.ant.pl/MathUniversalis/2/grundy/mu.html
P.R. Halmos, Naive Set Theory, Springer,1960
A.G. Hamilton, Logic for Mathematicians,(Revised Edn), Cambridge University Press,1988
J. Harrison,‘Formalized Mathematics,’ Math.Universalis, 2,1996, http://www.pip.com.pl/MathUniversalis/2/harrison/jrh0100.html
M. Jackson, H. Lowe,“XBarnacle:Making Theorem Provers More Accessible,’ CADE-17, p502–506, LNAI 1831, Springer, 2000
L. Lamport,‘How to write a proof’, American Mathematical Monthly, 102(7): 600–608, 1994
U. Leron,‘Structuring Mathematical Proofs,’ American Mathematical Monthly 90(3):174–185,1983
J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann,1993
L.C. Paulson & K. Grabczewski,‘Mechanizing Set Theory,” Journal of Automated Reasoning, 17: 291–323, 1996
G. Polya, How to Solve It, Penguin Books,1990
W. Rudin, Functional Analysis (2nd Edn), McGraw-Hill, 1991
J. Siekmann, S. Hess, C. Benzmüller, L. Cheikhrouhou, H. Horacek, M. Kohlhase, K. Konrad, A. Meier, E. Melis, M. Pollet, V. Sorge,‘LΩUI:Lovely Omega User Interface,’ Formal Aspects of Computing 11(3):1–17, 1999
A. Strauss, J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research:Techniques and Procedures for Developing a Grounded Theory, Sage Publications,1998
F. Wiedijk,The De Bruijn Factor, http://www.cs.kun.nl/~freek/factor/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cairns, P., Gow, J. (2003). A Theoretical Analysis of Hierarchical Proofs. In: Asperti, A., Buchberger, B., Davenport, J.H. (eds) Mathematical Knowledge Management. MKM 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2594. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36469-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36469-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00568-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36469-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive