Argumentation theory for mathematical argument
This work addresses the challenge of analyzing mathematical discourse for researchers in computational linguistics and mathematics, though it appears incremental as it builds on existing argumentation theory.
The paper tackles the problem of modeling mathematical arguments by introducing a framework that represents mathematical objects, relationships, and inferences, enabling analysis of dialogues and texts at sentence and structural levels. It demonstrates potential applications in computational reasoning and claims to offer a more natural approach than Lamport's structured proofs for examining theorem-proving processes.
To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the discourse unfolds. We introduce a framework with these properties, which has been used to analyse mathematical dialogues and expository texts. The framework can recover salient elements of discourse at, and within, the sentence level, as well as the way mathematical content connects to form larger argumentative structures. We show how the framework might be used to support computational reasoning, and argue that it provides a more natural way to examine the process of proving theorems than do Lamport's structured proofs.