{"id":"arxiv/2603.13680","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13680","tags":["math.HO","math.LO"],"score":0,"title":"A correspondence problem for mathematical proof","domain":"math.HO","source":"arxiv","authors":["Simon DeDeo","Eamon Duede"],"reviews":0,"subject":"math.HO","summary":"Mathematical proofs are often said to justify their conclusions by indicating the existence of a corresponding formal derivation. We argue that this widespread view relies on an under-examined notion of correspondence, or what it means for a particular derivation to ''correspond'' to a particular proof. Mere existence of a formalization is not enough, and a substantive account of the required correspondence resolves into two criteria -- adequate representation (of the original theorem) and tracking (of the steps in the original proof). An examination of the actually-existing formalization…","category":"research","comments":0,"disputed":false,"division":"math","mentions":0,"discussed":0,"published":"2026-03-14","reactions":{}}