Date of Original Version

2006

Type

Article

Rights Management

The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com.

Abstract or Description

On a traditional view, the primary role of a mathematical proof is to warrant the truth of the resulting theorem. This view fails to explain why it is very often the case that a new proof of a theorem is deemed important. Three case studies from elementary arithmetic show, informally, that there are many criteria by which ordinary proofs are valued. I argue that at least some of these criteria depend on the methods of inference the proofs employ, and that standard models of formal deduction are not well-equipped to support such evaluations. I discuss a model of proof that is used in the automated deduction community, and show that this model does better in that respect.

DOI

10.1007/s11229-005-4064-5

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS