Abstract

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 systems we have today shows the variety of quasi-empirical ways we establish these criteria, and points towards new burdens that may be placed on the future evolution of mathematics itself.