formal verification engineers

Abstract: We present a new proof of weak normalization for intuitionistic natural deduction. The distinguishing features of this proof are that it works only with cuts rather than cut segments, provides explicit local rules for determining whether to contract a whole proof or reduce one of its subproofs, and in the latter case, which subproof to reduce. We also discuss a formalization of the entire proof in Lean, and present a deterministic algorithm for weak normalization.

Abstract: In this paper, we develop warrant theory as a philosophical discipline concerned with the inferential legitimacy of propositions within logical analysis. Warrant theory reconceptualises logic as a normative framework governing the conditions under which propositions may be introduced, accepted, rejected, and inferentially employed. Warrant is understood as inferential entitlement and is distinguished from truth, belief, and other psychological attitudes, while its relation to inferential use and meaning is examined. Warrant-theoretic analysis is then developed as a systematic method for investigating how propositions acquire inferential standing, how that standing develops, and how inferential positions interact through relations of dependence, compatibility, incompatibility, and exclusion. Acceptance and rejection provide the bilateral vocabulary for representing positive and negative inferential positions and the consequences and commitments associated with them. Finally, these elements are brought together in a warrant-theoretic definition of logic as the formal and normative study of the conditions under which propositions may be legitimately accepted or rejected and of the inferential transitions that such legitimacy warrants. On this account, logical consequence and logical failure are understood through the presence, preservation, or absence of inferential entitlement, thus locating the philosophical subject matter of logic in the systematic governance of inferential legitimacy.

Abstract: Mathematical proofs vary in legibility. While most proof optimisation techniques seek to minimise proof size, the strategic reordering of inferences can reduce the working memory demand of proof checking without altering overall size. Metamath serves as a prime case study for this approach: its verification architecture requires proof steps to be ordered in a manner that prioritises algorithmic efficiency over readability. In this paper, we introduce algorithms to minimise both peak and cumulative memory consumption, applying the latter as a novel proxy for sustained human cognitive effort. We achieve this by representing proofs as directed acyclic graphs and modelling their execution as a pebbling game. Finding an optimal ordering via brute force is computationally infeasible, so we use heuristics to provide approximations. We apply these algorithms across Metamath's ZFC set theory library and present case studies demonstrating how automated reordering systematically improves the presentation of formal mathematics.