Abstract
This paper describes the nature of mathematical discovery (including concept definition and exploration, example generation, and theorem conjecture and proof), and considers how such an intelligent process can be simulated by a machine. Although the material is drawn primarily from graph theory, the results are immediately relevant to research in mathematical discovery and learning.
The thought experiment, a protocol paradigm for the empirical study of mathematical discovery, highlights behavioral objectives for machine simulation. This thought experiment provides an insightful account of the discovery process, motivates a framework for describing mathematical knowledge in terms of object classes, and is a rich source of advice on the design of a system to perform discovery in graph theory. The evaluation criteria for a discovery system, it is argued, must include both a set of behavior to display (behavioral objectives) and a target set of facts to be discovered (factual knowledge).
Cues from the thought experiment are used to formulate two hierarchies of representational languages for graphy theory. The first hierarchy is based on the superficial terminology and knowledge of the thought experiment. Generated by formal grammars with set-theoretic semantics, this eminently reasonable approach ultimately fails to meet the factual knowledge criteria. The second hierarchy uses declarative expressions, each of which has a semantic interpretation as a stylized, recursive algorithm that defines a class by generating it correctly and completely. A simple version of one such representation is validated by a successful, implemented system called Graph Theorist (GT) for mathematical research in graph theory. GT generates correct examples, defines and explores new graph theory properties, and conjectures and proves theorems.
Several themes run through this paper. The first is the dual goals, behavioral objectives and factural knowledge to be discovered, and the multiplicity of their demands on a discovery system. The second theme is the central role of object classes to knowledge representation. The third is the increased power and flexibility of a constructive (generator) definition over the more traditional predicate (tester) definition. The final theme is the importance of examples and recursion in mathematical knowledge. The results provide important guidance for further research in the simulation of mathematical discovery.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
S.L. Epstein, “Learning and discovery: One system's search for mathematical knowledge”, Computational Intelligence vol. 4–1, pp. 42–53, 1988.
H. Gelernter, “Realization of a geometry-theorem proving machine,” in Computers and Thought, edited by E.A.Feigenbaum and J.Feldman, McGraw-Hill: New York, pp. 134–152, 1963.
D.B. Lenat, “AM: An artificial intelligence approach to discovery in mathematics,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1976.
N.S. Sridharan, “Artificial intelligence and mathematical reasoning,” paper presented to the Mathematics Section meeting of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY, May, 1984.
F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley: Reading, 1972.
G. Polya, How to Solve It, Doubleday Anchor Books: Garden City, 1957. 2nd ed.
G. Polya, Mathematical Discovery, John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1962. Volumes 1 and 2.
I. Lakatos, Proof and Refutations—The Logic of Mathematical Discovery, edited by I.Worrall and E.Zahar, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1976.
O. Ore, Theory of Graphs, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Volume 38, American Mathematical Society: Providence, 1962.
J. Bondy and U. Murty, Graph Theory with Applications, North-Holland: New York, 1976.
S.L. Epstein, “Knowledge representation in mathematics: A case study in graph theory,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, 1983.
B. Pascal, Pensées de Pascal, Éditions Garnier Frères:Paris, pp. 73–84, 1964.
H. Poincaré, La Valeur de la Sciènce, Flammarion: France, pp. 27–40, 1970.
R.S. Boyer and J.S. Moore, A Computational Logic, Academic Press: New York, 1979.
M. Leyton, ‘A process grammar for shape,’ Artificial Intelligence vol. 34–2, pp. 213–247, 1988.
J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman, Introduction to Automate Theory, Languages and Computation, Addison-Wesley: Reading, 1979.
J.G. Carbonell, R.S. Michalski, and T.M. Mitchell, “An overview of machine learning,” in Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, edited by R.S.Michalski, J.G.Carbonell, and T.M.Mitchell, Tioga Publishing: Palo Alto, pp. 3–23, 1983.
R. Banerji, Theory of Problem Solving: An Approach to Artificial Intelligence, American Elsevier Publishing: New York, 1969.
P.E. Utgoff, “Shift of bias for inductive concept learning,” in Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Volume II, edited by R.S.Michalski, J.G.Carbonell and T.M.Mitchell, Tioga Publishing: Palo Alto, pp. 107–148, 1986.
B.G. Buchanan and T.M. Mitchell, “Model-directed learning of production rules,” in Pattern-Directed Inference Systems, edited by D.A.Waterman and F.Hayes-Roth, Academic Press: New York, pp. 297–312, 1978.
H. Galperin, “Succinct representation of graphs,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Princeton University, 1982.
B.K. Rosen, “Deriving graphs from graphs by applying a production,” Acta Informatica vol. 4, pp. 337–357, 1975.
M. Wegman, “Summarizing graphs by regular expressions,” POPL, pp. 203–216, 1983.
A. Proskurowski, “Recursive graphs, recursive labelings and shortest paths,” SIAM J. Comput. vol. 10–2, pp. 391–397, 1981.
M.Yannakakis, “Node-and-edge-deletion NP-complete problems,” in Proceedings 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Association for Computing Machinery: New York, 1978, pp. 253–264.
T.W. Pratt and D.P. Friedman, “A language extension for graph processing and its formal semantics,“ CACM vol. 14–7, pp. 460–467, 1971.
P.M. Dorin, “Aspects of the implementation of sequential graph rewriting systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1982.
M. Sims, “Empirical and analytic discovery in IL,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Machine Learning, Irvine, CA, 1987, pp. 274–280.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Epstein, S.L., Sridharan, N.S. Knowledge representation for mathematical discovery: Three experiments in graph theory. Appl Intell 1, 7–33 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117743
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117743