Discovery and Reasoning in Mathematics'
Discovery and Reasoning in Mathematics'
Alan Bundy
Compare mathematics with other AI domains in which The first problem we face is how to classify
reasoning plays a part, e.g. natural language under- mathematical reasoning into different processes
standing or visual perception. In mathematics one is - what my psychology friends call defining the task
not bogged down with huge amounts of noisy data, ecology. Our starting point is a 'folk ecology' of
nor concerned that what seems to be a difficult reasoning processes, i.e. the terms used in pre-
reasoning issue may evaporate if the knowledge scientific discussion of reasoning. We will call these
representation were changed. One is free to con- mathematical abilities. With these abilities we must
centrate on the reasoning problems and then make associate computational techniques which implement
an attempt to translate any solution found to them. These techniques will form our scientific
other domains. classification. But the association of abilities to
techniques not a neat 1-1 mapping. We are likely
In this paper I discuss the automation of math- to find many techniques to associate with each
ematical reasoning, by which I mean any cognitive ability. Some abilities, e.g. learning, have so many
activity that mathematicians engage in as math- diverse techniques associated with them that they
seem highly unsuitable as scientific categories,
whereas the techniques associated with some
This research was supported by SERC grant. number abilities, e.g. theorem proving, all have a strong
GR/C/20826.
1222 A. Bundy
family resemblance. Some abilities require a com- using the above techniques.
bination of techniques. Consider, for instance, anal-
ogy which requires separate techniques for finding - Using Analogy: Mathematicians use analogy
and then using the analogy. Each of these tech- to suggest conjectures and new defini-
niques will require sub-techniques. Some of these tions, and to guide proofs. All uses
techniques may contribute to several different require analogical matching techniques to
abilities. Consider, for instances, resolution-type find and apply the relationship between
deduction techniques, which are ubiquitous. the target and the source of the analogy
(see [Owen 85] for a survey). This is all
We list below the mathematical abilities we will be that is required for suggesting conjec-
considering under the heading of mathematical tures and definitions, but to use a
reasoning and mention some of the techniques which source proof to control the search for a
have been used to implement these abilities. target proof a further proof plan ap-
plication technique is required.
- Proving theorems: The ability that has
received the most attention in the AI This is by no means an exhaustive list; math-
study of mathematical reasoning, almost ematicians also find counterexamples, write, publish
to the exclusion of all others, has been and deliver papers, teach students, read textbooks,
theorem proving. Automated theorem etc. Unfortunately, we have nothing to say about
proving has been an important subfield of these other abilities, so they are omitted.
AI throughout its history. The main
techniques required to automate theorem
proving are deduction which involves 3. Mathematical Reasoning Techniques
search control. Deduction traverses a In this section we classify and discuss some of
search space of legal inference steps. the techniques that have been developed for
Search control decides which of these automating the mathematical abilities described in
steps to try. the last section. There is only space to discuss
those we consider particularly promising. We group
- Formalizing Problems: However, math- these techniques according to their computational
ematicians, especially applied math- purpose and mutual similarity, e.g. deduction,
ematicians, spend a large part of their search control. inductive inference. etc. This
time translating informal problem state- provides a more scientific classification of math-
ments into mathematical formulae to ematical reasoning processes than the list of math-
which deduction, etc. may be applied. ematical abilities above. But even this classification
The initial stages of this translation in- is bound to be improved as we discover new tech-
volve natural language understanding, visual niques and gain a better understanding of the ex-
perception, etc - but these are not isting techniques and their inter-relationships. It
specifically mathematical techniques. should therefore be regarded as both incomplete
Later stages involve the specifically math- and highly preliminary.
ematical technique of formula extraction
from the internal meaning representation,
which may itself involve deduction (see
section 3.5). 3.1. Deduction
The most well known deduction technique is
- Learning: This term covers a multitude of resolution, [Robinson 65]. Resolution is a rule of
processes, for instance, the learning of inference for Predicate Calculus, that is. it is a
new mathematical theorems, the learning rule for deducing new logical formulae from old.
of new proof methods, the defining of To prove that a conjecture is a theorem of a
new concepts, the conjecturing of mathematical theory both the axioms of the theory
results, etc. New theorems must be as- and the negation of the conjecture are expressed
similated into the theorem proving ability as clauses (a normal form for Predicate Calculus
so that they may be used effectively in formulae). Resolution takes a pair of clauses and
the future. The assimilation technique makes subparts of each identical using a matching
required will depend particularly on the technique called unification. The remaining parts are
search control technique being used, e.g. combined together to make a new clause. Resolu-
the new theorem will need to be labelled tion applied repeatedly to the initial clauses and to
so that it can be accessed when needed. their successors defines a search space of clauses.
Similarly, new proof methods must be in- This is searched for a contradiction. If the search
corporated into the current search con- is successful then the conjecture is a theorem.
trol technique. This may involve a proof
analysis technique to analyse new proofs The representation of axioms and conjectures as
and generalize them to extract control logical formulae is given in the texts of math-
information, e.g. proof plans. Defining ematics and logic. It is in this sense that I
new concepts can be done by inductive claimed that the knowledge representation problem
inference from descriptions of 2examples
and non-examples of the concept. Con-
jecturing of theorems can be done by Note that inductive infaranca it not tha same as math-
considering the hypothesis of the conjec- ematical induction (••• •action 3.2 below), which ia a
ture to be a concept to be defined daductive rule of inference.
A. Bundy 1223
This process of analysis and guidance using meta- applied and how this reason fitted into the overall
concepts is itself a reasoning process and can be proof plan. For instance, sin u.cos u = 1/2.sin 2u
conveniently represented as deduction - but deduc- was applied to reduce the occurrences of u from 2
tion in a meta-theory, rather than the theory it- to 1 in order that that single occurrence could be
self. Such a use of deduction to guide deduction isolated on the left hand side of the equation.
is made explicit in the PRESS system, [Bundy & Wel- This kind of analysis is performed by the LP
ham 81], for solving equations. The PRESS meta- program. [Silver 84], which was able to learn new
concepts describe the equation to be solved, e.g. methods of equation solving and extend the range
the number of unknowns, their distance apart, the of problems that PRESS could solve. The technique
kind of functions involved, etc, and they describe used by LP is called Precondition Analysis because it
various methods of solving equations or of achieving discovers new methods by considering how un-
useful subgoals, e.g. reducing the number of un- explained steps establish the preconditions of suc-
knowns, moving them closer together, making them cessive steps.
occur within identical subterms, etc. Deduction
with these meta-concepts induces an implicit, but In the case of the LEX program for symbolic
highly controlled, search for the solution to an integration (also described in section 3.?) the tech-
equation. We call this technique, meta-level in- nique of back propagation was developed to analyse
ference (see figure 3-1). successful solutions and extract the control infor-
mation. This technique was incorporated in the LEX2
program, [Mitchell et al 833. In back propagation
the successful sequence of rewrite rules was applied
in reverse order to a generalized answer to see
what constraints this would impose on the original
problem. These constraints then became the precon-
ditions of the first rule of the sequence. For
instance, given a successful integration of cos7(x),
LEX? used back propagation to discover that the
same sequence of rules n would have worked on any
term of the form cos (x). where n was an odd
integer. The first rule of this sequence,
These meta-concepts can also be used to express was then given the precondition, f-cos &, odd(r). In
proof plans, e.g. the plan to move two unknowns forming this constraint. back propagation also
closer together, then merge them and then isolate defined the concept. odd* as any number of the
the remaining occurrence. This plan might be form 2k+ 1, where k is an integer.
provided by the programmer or learnt by proof
analysis of a worked example (see section 3.3). Al-
ternatively the proof plan may be at the object- Proof analysis can also be used to analyse faulty
level, e.g. the proof of an analogous theorem, or a proofs and repair them. For instance, a classic
generalized proof. [Plummer & Bundy 84]. In each faulty proof in the history of analysis is due to
case it must then be applied by a proof plan Cauchy. namely that a convergent series of con-
application technique. This application might be tinuous functions is continuous. This proof can
straightforward - the target proof exactly following be analysed using deduction and the fault identified
the plan - or the plan may need to be relaxed or as a missing occurs check during unification (see
augmented at various points. A variety of tech- section 3.1. This suggests an obvious patch, namely
niques have been suggested for realising such a changing the order of quantifiers in the theorem
flexible plan application technique (see, e.g. [Silver statement, and this generates three new concepts
84]) and three new and correct theorems. One of these
is the traditional replacement of convergence by
uniform convergence; one is a trivial theorem whose
3.3. Proof Analysis conclusion is always true; and one is a new theorem
The process of constructing and augmenting involving the concept of equi-continuity. This
powerful search control techniques, by adding meta- reasoning process, which we will call argument
knowledge gained from analysing proofs, can itself removal, has been implemented in a program, SEIDEl ,
be automated. This analysis will depend crucially on described in [Bundy 85].
the search control technique in question. For in-
stance, in the case of the PRESS system, described
in section 3.2. the solution to an equation must be
analysed using the meta-concepts of PRESS. For each
step an account must be given of not only what It would have been more powerful to remember the whole
algebraic identity was applied but also why it was sequence as a proof plan and make the constraints the
preconditions of the plan rather than just its first step.
In contrast to the deduction of the equation solution, which See [Lakatos 76] for a discussion of this proof and its
is called object-level inference. history.
A. Bundy 1225
For a survey of the use of proof analysis for the unknowns and givens of the problem. The vari-
learning see [Boswell 85]. ables are then instantiated by inferring the logical
description from the meaning of the English problem
statement.
3.4. Inductive Inference
Inductive inference has received a lot of atten- This inference process may use deduction and
tion in the learning literature, with a number of default reasoning to fill gaps between the state-
techniques being developed. For a survey see ment of the problem and the knowledge required to
[Dietterich et al 82] and for an analytic com- instantiate the law. MECHO used resolution guided
parison of some of these techniques see [Bundy et by meta-level inference for the deduction and the
al 833. They all learn a concept from examples and, closed world assumption for the default reasoning.
sometimes, non-examples of it. From examples of Deduction was needed, for instance, to work out
the concept the techniques might generalise: the contributions to the sum of forces from
replacing specific relations and terms with more gravity, the tensions of strings, the reactions of
general ones. From non-examples of the concept contact surfaces, etc. Default reasoning was used,
the techniques might discriminate: pruning away rela- for instance, to assume that the only surfaces in
tions and terms that are not an essential part of contact were those mentioned in the problem
the concept. statement.
[Uschold et al 84]
Uschold, M., Harding, N., Muetzelfeldt,
R. and Bundy, A.
An Intelligent Front End for Ecologi-
cal Modelling.
In O'Shea, T. (editor). Proceedings of
ECAI-84, pages 761-770. ECAI,
1984.
Available from Edinburgh as Research
Paper 223.