text: Looking for a collection of entry level proofs - MathOverflow
  linguistics computational-linguistics soft-question flag edited Jan 7 2012 at 21:28Andres Caicedo
  community wiki3 revisions, 3 usersNickolay Kolev 59%
  1 This question should be community wiki in my opinion. – Grétar Amazeen Oct 21 2010 at 16:34
  You can try Aigner and Ziegler's book Proofs from the book link|flag
  answered Oct 22 2010 at 1:26SandeepJ
  answered Oct 21 2010 at 16:29Andrew D. King
  answered Oct 22 2010 at 3:26PamNDRome
  community wiki I admit to having some similar questions myself. For instance, if you're doing a linguistic analysis, why does it matter whether the proofs are "entry level" or not? Or are you thinking that proofs written for a less mathematically sophisticated audience will also be less sophisticated in a purely linguistic way? (It's not clear to me whether that's a reasonable assumption or not.) – Pete L. Clark Oct 22 2010 at 3:41
  I will be looking for a way to represent the proofs as a symbolic structures which would enable further processing. Formulae and symbols will be treated along with the "natural language bits". Ideally an identical proof step expressed as a formula and expressed in words should yield the same output structure.
  The long term goal is the interpretation of arbitrary proofs in expressions of Artemov's Justification Logic (see e.g. logic.uconn.edu/readings/Milnikel1.pdf).
  Checking the correctness of a proof is not a goal. – Nickolay Kolev Oct 22 2010 at 16:37
  A clarification on the requirement of "entry level": I would like to work with entry level proofs so as to concentrate on the linguistic means used in proofs while still being able to understand the proofs.
  I am mostly interested in the expressions used to denote premise->conclusion substructures. – Nickolay Kolev Oct 22 2010 at 16:41
  @Nickolay-Kolev, thanks for the clarifications. What sort of mapping are you using from textual words to symbology? (I guess I'm asking what dictionary you're using as the canonical mechanism for defining a string of letters unambiguously.) The same string of letters is the same word but can have very different meanings in different contexts, for example. – PamNDRome Oct 23 2010 at 1:49
  answered Oct 22 2010 at 16:53Gerald Edgar
  answered Oct 22 2010 at 18:51Yuri Bakhtin
  community wiki 3 Beweis: klar. :-) – Felipe Voloch Oct 22 2010 at 19:06
  answered Oct 22 2010 at 22:47Qingchun Ren
  answered Oct 24 2010 at 2:26Kevin O'Bryant
  answered May 1 2011 at 20:50none
  answered Jan 7 2012 at 21:47Shahrooz
  Browse other questions tagged linguistics computational-linguistics soft-question or ask your own question.