AMS, 2008: Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 55 (11).

Arthan, R.D., 2013: ProofPower, www.lemma-one.com/ProofPower/index/index.html.

Asperti, A., Ricciotti, W., Sacerdoti Coen, C. and Tassi, E., 2011: The Matita Interactive Theorem Prover. In Bjørner, N. and Sofronie-Stokkermans, V., eds, Automated Deduction: CADE 23, 23rd International Conference on Automated Deduction, Wroclaw, Poland, 31 July – 5 August 2011, pp. 64-69, Springer. See also matita.cs.unibo.it/.Google Scholar

Automath Archive, 2004: Home Page, www.win.tue.nl/automath/.

Barendregt, H.P., 1981: The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics, North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Barendregt, H.P., 1992: Lambda calculi with types. In Abramski, S., Gabbay, D. and Maibaum, T., eds, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, pp. 117–309, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Barendregt, H. and Geuvers, H., 2001: Proof assistants using dependent type systems. In Robinson, A. and Voronkov, A., eds, Handbook of Automated Reasoning, Vol. 2, pp. 1149–1238, Elsevier.Google Scholar

Barendregt, H.P., Dekkers, W. and Statman, R., eds, 2013: Lambda Calculus with Types, Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

van Benthem Jutting, L.S., 1977: Checking Landau's ‘Grundlagen’ in the AUTOMATH system, PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology. See also Nederpelt et al., 1994, pp. 763–780.Google Scholar

van Benthem Jutting, L.S., 1993: Typing in Pure Type Systems, Information and Computation, 105 (1), pp. 30–41.Google Scholar

van Benthem Jutting, L.S., McKinna, J. and Pollack, R., 1994: Checking algorithms for Pure Type Systems. In Barendregt, H.P. and Nipkow, T., eds, Types for Proofs and Programs, International Workshop TYPES'93, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, pp. 19–61, Springer.Google Scholar

Bertot, Y. and Castéran, P., 2004: Interactive Theorem Proving and Program Development: Coq'Art: the Calculus of Inductive Constructions, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Böhm, C. and Berarducci, A., 1985: Automatic synthesis of typed ∧-programs on term algebras, Theoretical Computer Science, 39, pp. 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bove, A., Dybjer, P. and Norell, U., 2009: A brief overview of Agda: a functional language with dependent types. In Ierghofer, S., Nipkow, T., Irban, C. and Wenzel, M., eds, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics, TPHOLs 2009, Munich, Germany, 17-20 August 2009, pp. 73–78, Springer. See also wiki.portal.chalmers.se/agda/.Google Scholar

de Bruijn, N.G., 1968: Example of a text written in Automath. In Nederpelt et. al, 1994, pp. 687–700.Google Scholar

de Bruijn, N.G., 1970: The mathematical language AUTOMATH, its usage and some of its extensions. In Laudet, M., Lacombe, D., Nolin, L. and Schiitzenberger, M., eds, Symposium on Automatic Demonstration, Versailles pp. 29–61, Springer. Reprinted in Nederpelt et al., 1994, pp. 73–100.Google Scholar

de Bruijn, N.G., 1972: Lambda calculus notation with nameless dummies, a tool for automatic formula manipulation, with application to the Church-Rosser Theorem, Indagationes Mathematicae, 34 (5), pp. 381–392, Elsevier.Google Scholar

de Bruijn, N.G., 1980: A survey of the project AUTOMATH. In Seldin & Hindley, 1980, pp. 579–606.Google Scholar

Cantor, G., 1874: Über eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen, Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 77, pp. 258–262, Georg Reimer Verlag. English translation in Ewald, W., ed., From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, 1996, pp. 840–843, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Cardone, F. and Hindley, J.R., 2009: Lambda-calculus and combinators in the 20th century. In Gabbay, D.M. and Woods, J., eds, Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 5, pp. 723–817, Elsevier.Google Scholar

Church, A., 1933: A set of postulates for the foundation of logic, Annals of Mathematics, 33, pp. 346–366, and 34, pp. 839–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, A., 1935: An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory, preliminary report (abstract), Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 41, pp. 332–333.Google Scholar

Church, A., 1936a: A note on the Entscheidungsproblem, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

Church, A., 1936b: An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory, American Journal of Mathematics, 58, pp. 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, A., 1940: A formulation of the simple theory of types, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, pp. 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Constable, R.L., Allen, S.F., Bromley, H.M., Cleaveland, W.R., Cremer, J.F., Harper, R.W., Howe, D.J., Knoblock, T.B., Mendler, N.P., Panangaden, P., Sasaki, J.T. and Smith, S.F., 1986: Implementing Mathematics with the Nuprl Development System, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Coq Development Team, 2012: The Coq Proof Assistant, Reference Manual,Version 8.4. See coq.inria.fr/refman/.

Coquand, Th., 1985: Une théorie des constructions, PhD thesis, University of Paris VII.Google Scholar

Coquand, Th. and Huet, G., 1988: The Calculus of Constructions, Information and Computation, 76, pp. 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curry, H.B., 1930: Grundlagen der Kombinatorischen Logik, American Journal of Mathematics, 52 (3), pp. 509–536, and (4), pp. 789–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curry, H.B., 1969: Modified basic functionality in combinatory logic, Dialectica, 23, pp. 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Curry, H.B. and Feys, R., 1958: Combinatory Logic, Vol. 1, North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

van Daalen, D.T., 1973: A description of AUTOMATH and some aspects of its language theory. In Braffort, P., ed., Proceedings of the Symposium APLASM, Orsay, France. Reprinted in Nederpelt et al., 1994, pp. 101–126.Google Scholar

van Dalen, D., 1994: Logic and Structure, 3rd augmented edition, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Dalen, D., Doets, H.C. and de Swart, H., 1978: Sets: Naive, Axiomatic and Applied, Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Damas, L. and Milner, R., 1982: Principal type-schemes for functional programs. In DeMillo, R.A., ed., POPL '82: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 207–212, ACM.Google Scholar

Davis, M., ed., 1965: The Undecidable, Basic Papers on Undecidable Propositions, Unsolvable Problems and Computable Functions, Raven Press.

Dechesne, F. and Nederpelt, R.P., 2012: N.G. de Bruijn (1918–2012) and his road to Automath, the earliest proof checker, The Mathematical Intelligencer, 34(4), pp. 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fitch, F., 1952: Symbolic Logic, An Introduction, The Ronald Press Company.Google Scholar

Frege, F.L.G., 1893: Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Verlag Hermann Pohle. Facsimile reprints in 1962 and 1998, Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar

Gandy, R.O., 1980: An early proof of normalization by A.M. Turing.In Seldin & Hindley, 1980, pp. 453–455, Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gentzen, G., 1934/5: Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen, I, Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39(2).Google Scholar

Geuvers, J.H., 1995: A short and flexible proof of Strong Normalization for the Calculus of Constructions. In Dybjer, P., Nordstriöm, B. and Smith, J., eds, Types for Proofs and Programs, International Workshop TYPES '94, Bastad, Sweden, pp. 14–38, Springer.Google Scholar

Geuvers, J.H., 2001: Induction is not derivable in second order dependent type theory. In Abramsky, S., ed., Proceedings of Typed Lambda Calculus and Applications, TLCA 2001, Krakow, Poland, May 2001, pp. 166–181, Springer.Google Scholar

Geuvers, J.H., 2009: Proof assistants: history, ideas and future, Sadahana Journal, Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences, Indian Academy of Sciences, 34(1), Special Issue on Interactive Theorem Proving and Proof Checking, pp. 3–25.Google Scholar

Geuvers, J.H., 2013: Inconsistency of ‘Automath powersets’ in impredicative type theory, Short note www.cs.ru.nl/∼herman/PUBS/InconsAutSetTh.pdf.

Geuvers, J.H., 2014a: Properties of a lambda calculus with definitions, Short note, www.cs.ru.nl/∼herman/PUBS/PropLamCDef.pdf.

Geuvers, J.H., 2014b: A formalization of the integers, Short note, www.cs.ru.nl/∼herman/PUBS/FormInt.pdf.

Geuvers, J.H. and Nederpelt, R.P., 1994: Typed λ-calculus. In de Swart, H.C.M., Logic: Mathematics, Language, Computer Science and Philosophy, Vol. 2, Section 33, pp. 168–199, Peter Lang GmbH.Google Scholar

Geuvers, J.H. and Nederpelt, R.P., 2004: Rewriting for Fitch style natural deductions. In van Oostrom, V., ed., Proceedings of RTA 2004, 15th International Conference on Rewriting Techniques and Applications, Aachen, Germany, pp. 134–154, Springer.Google Scholar

Geuvers, J.H. and Nederpelt, R.P., 2013: N.G. de Bruijn's contribution to the formalization of mathematics, Indagationes Mathematicae, 24, pp. 1034–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Girard, J.-Y., 1971: Une extension de l'interpretation de Gödel à l'analyse et son application à l'élimination des coupures dans l'analyse et la théorie des types. In Fenstad, J.E., ed., Proceedings of the Second Scandinavian Logic Symposium, pp. 63–92, North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Girard, J.-Y., 1972: Interprétation fonctionelle et élimination des coupures dans l'arithmétique d'ordre supérieur, PhD thesis, UniversiteParis VII.Google Scholar

Girard, J.-Y., 1986: The system F of variable types, fifteen years later, Theoretical Computer Science, 45, pp. 159–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y. and Taylor, P., 1989: Proofs and Types, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Göidel, K., 1932: Ui ber formal unentscheidbare Saitze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme, I, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, pp. 173–198. Also in van Heijenoort, 1967.Google Scholar

Gonthier, G., 2005: A Computer-checked Proofof the Four Colour Theorem, research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/gonthier/4colproof.pdf.

Gonthier, G., 2008: Formal proof: the Four Color Theorem, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 55 (11), pp. 1370–1381.Google Scholar

Gonthier, G., Asperti, A., Avigad, J., Bertot, Y., Cohen, C., Garillot, F., Le Roux, S., Mahboubi, A., O'Connor, R., Ould Biha, S., Pasca, I., Rideau, L., Solovyev, A., Tassi, E. and Théry, L., 2013: A machine-checked proof of the odd order theorem. In Blazy, S., Paulin-Mohring, C. and Pichardie, D., eds, Interactive Theorem Proving: 4th International Conference, ITP 2013, 22-26 July 2013, Rennes, France pp. 163–179, Springer.Google Scholar

Gordon, M.J.C., 2000: From LCF to HOL: a short history. In Plotkin, G., Stirling, C.P. and Tofte, M., eds, Proof, Language, and Interaction, Essays in Honour of Robin Milner (Foundations of Computing), pp. 169–185, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, M.J.C. and Melham, T.F., eds, 1993: Introduction to HOL: A Theorem-Proving Environment for Higher-Order Logic, Cambridge University Press.

Gupta, A., 2014: Definitions. In Zalta, E.N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/definitions/.

Hales, T.C., 2006: Introduction to the Flyspeck Project, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 05021, Mathematics, Algorithms, Proofs, pdf.aminer.org/000/137/477/introduction_to_the_flyspeck_project.pdf.

Hales, T.C., Harrison, J., McLaughlin, S., Nipkow, T., Obua, S. and Zumkeller, R., 2010: A revision of the proof of the Kepler conjecture, Discrete & Computational Geometry, 44 (1), pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harper, R., Honsell, F. and Plotkin, G., 1987: A framework for defining logics. In Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Ithaca, NY, pp. 194–204, IEEE.Google Scholar

van Heijenoort, J., 1967: From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hilbert, D., 1927: The Foundations of Mathematics. Reproduced in van Heijenoort, 1967.

Hilbert, D. and Bernays, P., 1939: Grundlagen der Mathematik, Vol. 2, Springer.Google Scholar

Hindley, J.R., 1969: The principal type-scheme of an object in combinatory logic, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 146, pp. 29–60.Google Scholar

Hindley, J.R., 1997: Basic Simple Type Theory, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hindley, J.R. and Seldin, J.P., 2008: Lambda-Calculus and Combinators, an Introduction, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

HOL system, 1988: www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/hvg/HOL/.

Howard, W., 1980: The formulas-as-types notion of construction. In Seldin & Hindley, 1980, pp. 479–490.Google Scholar

JAR, 2013: Journal of Automated Reasoning, 50 (2), Special Issue: Formal Mathematics for Mathematicians.

Jaśkowski, S., 1934: On the rules of suppositions in formal logic, Studia Logica, 1, pp. 5–32. Reprinted in McCall, S., ed., Polish Logic 1920–1939;, Oxford University Press, 1967, pp. 232–258.Google Scholar

Jech, Th., 2003: Set Theory: The Third Millennium Edition, revised and expanded edition, Springer.Google Scholar

Jones, R.B., 2013: 42 Famous Theorems in ProofPower, www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/pp/rda001.html.

Kamareddine, F.D., Laan, T.D.L. and Nederpelt, R.P., 2002: Types in logic and mathematics before 1940, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 8 (2), pp. 185–245. Reprinted as ‘A history of types’ in Gabbay, D.M., Pelletier, F.J. and Woods, J., eds, Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 11, pp. 451–511, Elsevier, 2012.Google Scholar

Kamareddine, F.D., Laan, T.D.L. and Nederpelt, R.P., 2003: De Bruijn's Automath and Pure Type Systems. In Kamareddine, F.D., ed., Thirty Five Years of Automating Mathematics, pp. 71–123, Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamareddine, F.D., Laan, T.D.L. and Nederpelt, R.P., 2004: A Modern Perspective on Type Theory, From its Origins until Today, Kluwer.Google Scholar

Klein, G., 2013: Isabelle Top 100, www.cse.unsw.edu.au/∼kleing/top100/.

Kneale, W. and Kneale, M., 1962: The Development of Logic, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Kwiatek, R., 1990: Factorial and Newton coefficients, Journal of Formalized Mathematics, 1 (5), pp. 887–890.Google Scholar

Lamport, L., 1985: LATEX: A Document Preparation System, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Landau, E., 1930: Grundlagen der Analysis, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft; 3rd edition, 1960, Chelsea Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Lewis, H. and Papadimitriou, C.H., 1981: Elements of the Theory of Computation, Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Luo, Z., 1990: An Extended Calculus of Constructions, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Luo, Z., 1994: Computation and Reasoning: A Type Theory for Computer Science, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Madiot, J.-M., 2013: Formalizing 100 theorems in Coq, perso.ens-lyon.fr/jeanmarie.madiot/coq100/.

Magnusson, L. and Nordström, B., 1994: The ALF proof editor and its proof engine. In Barendregt, H. and Nipkow, T., eds, Types for Proofs and Programs, International Workshop TYPES'93, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, pp. 213–237, Springer.Google Scholar

Margaris, A., 1961: Axioms for the integers, American Mathematical Monthly, 68 (5), pp. 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin-Löf, P., 1980: Intuitionistic Type Theory, Bibliopolis.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J., Abrahams, P.W., Edwards, D.J., Hart, T.P. and Levin, M.I., 1985: LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mendelson, E., 2009: Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 5th edition, Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

Milner, R., 1972: Logic for Computable Functions: Description of a Machine Implementation, Technical Report, Stanford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milner, R., 1978: A theory of type polymorphism in programming, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 17, pp. 348–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mizar, 1989: Home Page, www.mizar.org.

Nederpelt, R.P., 1987: De Taal van de Wiskunde(The Language of Mathematics), Versluys.Google Scholar

Nederpelt, R.P., Geuvers, J.H. and de Vrijer, R.C., eds, 1994: Selected Papers on Automath, North-HollandElsevier.

Nederpelt, R.P. and Kamareddine, F.D., 2011: Logical Reasoning: A First Course, 2nd revised edition, College Publications.Google Scholar

Nipkow, T., Paulson, L.C. and Wenzel, M., 2002: Isabelle/HOL – A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, Springer.Google Scholar

Nordstrom, B., Petersson, K. and Smith, J., 1990: Programming in Martin-Löf's Type Theory, An Introduction, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Paulson, L.C., 1993: The Isabelle Reference Manual, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Peano, G., 1889: The Principles of Arithmetic, Presented by a New Method. Reproduced in van Heijenoort, 1967, pp. 83–97.Google Scholar

Pelletier, F.J., 1999: A brief history of natural deduction, History and Philosophy of Logic, 20, pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peyton Jones, S. et al., eds, 1998: Revised Report on Haskell 98, haskell.org/onlinereport/.

Pfenning, F., 2002: Logical frameworks: a brief introduction. In Schwichtenberg, H. and Steinbrüggen, R., eds, Proof and System-Reliability, Kluwer.Google Scholar

Pierce, B.C., 2002: Types and Programming Languages, MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pierce, B.C., 2004: Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages,MITPress.Google Scholar

Plotkin, G., 1977: LCF considered as a programming language, Theoretical Computer Science, 5, pp. 223–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollack, R., 1994: The Theory of LEGO: A Proof Checker for the Extended Calculus of Constructions, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Pollack, R. et al., 2001: The LEGO Proof Assistant, www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/lego/.

Prawitz, D., 1965: Natural Deduction, A Proof-Theoretic Study, Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

PVS, 1992: pvs-wiki.csl.sri.com/index.php/Main_Page.

Ramsey, F.P., 1926: The foundations of mathematics, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2nd series, 25, pp. 338–384.Google Scholar

Reynolds, J.C., 1974: Towards a theory of type structure. In Robinet, B., ed., Programming Symposium, Proceedings Colloque sur la Programmation,Paris, France, 9–11 April 1974, pp. 408–423, Springer.Google Scholar

Reynolds, J.C., 1984: Polymorphism is not set-theoretic. In Kahn, G., MacQueen, D.B. and Plotkin, G., eds, Semantics of Data Types, International Symposium, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 27–29 June 1984, pp. 145–156, Springer.Google Scholar

Robinson, J.A., 1965: A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle, Journal of the ACM, 12 (1), pp. 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, B., 1903: The Principles of Mathematics, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Russell, B., 1905: On Denoting, Mind, 14, pp. 479–493.Google Scholar

Russell, B., 1908: Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types, American Journal of Mathematics, 30, pp. 222–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanchis, L.E., 1967: Functionals defined by recursion, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 8, pp. 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schönfinkel, M., 1924: Über die Bausteine der mathematischen Logik. Translated as ‘On the building blocks of mathematical logic’ in van Heijenoort, 1967.Google Scholar

Schwichtenberg, H., 1976: Definierbare Funktionen im λ-Kalkül mit Typen, Archiv für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung, 17, pp. 113–114.Google Scholar

Seldin, J.P., 1979: Progress report on generalized functionality, Annals of Mathematical Logic, 17, pp. 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seldin, J.P. and Hindley, J.R., eds, 1980: To H.B. Curry: Essays on Combinatory Logic, Lambda-Calculus and Formalism, Academic Press.

Severi, P.G. and Poll, E., 1994: Pure Type Systems with definitions. In Nerode, A. and Matiyasevich, Yu. V., eds, Proceedings of the Symposium on Logical Foundations of Computer Science, LFCS '94, pp. 316–328, Springer.Google Scholar

Simmons, H., 2000: Derivation and Computation: Taking the Curry–Howard Correspondence Seriously, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sørensen, M.H. and Urzyczyn, P., 2006: Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism, Elsevier.Google Scholar

Sudkamp, Th., 2006: Languages and Machines: An Introduction to the Theory of Computer Science, 3rd edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Tait, W.W., 1967: Intensional interpretation of functionals of finite type, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 32 (2), pp. 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Takahashi, M., 1995: Parallel reductions in lambda calculus, Information and Computation, 118 (1), pp. 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Terese (Bezem, M.A., Klop, J.W. and de Vrijer, R.C., eds), 2003: Term Rewriting Systems, Cambridge University Press.

Troelstra, A.S. and van Dalen, D., 1988: Constructivism in Mathematics: An Introduction, 2 vols Elsevier.Google Scholar

Turing, A.M., 1936: On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 42(2), pp. 230–265; a correction, 43 (1937), pp. 544–546.Google Scholar

Twelf Project, 1999: twelf.plparty.org/wiki/Main_Page.

Univalent Foundations Program, 2013: Homotopy Type Theory, Univalent Foundations of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, homotopytypetheory.org/book/.

Visser, A. and Iemhoff, R., 2009: personal communication.

Voevodsky, V.A., 2014: Univalent Foundations: New Foundations of Mathematics, video lecture, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, video.ias.edu/node/6395.Google Scholar

Wand, M., 1987: A simple algorithm and proof for type inference, Fundamenta Informaticae, X, pp. 115–122.Google Scholar

Wells, J.B., 1994: Typability and type-checking in the second-order λ-calculus are equivalent and undecidable, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Paris, France pp. 176–185, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar

Whitehead, A.N. and Russell, B., 1910: Principia Mathematica, 3 vols, Cambridge University Press, 1910, 1912 and 1913. 2nd edition, 1925 (Vol. 1), 1927 (Vols 2, 3).Google Scholar

Wiedijk, F., 1999: Automath, Home Page: www.cs.ru.nl/∼freek/aut/.

Wiedijk, F., ed., 2006: The Seventeen Provers of the World, Springer.CrossRef

Wiedijk, F., 2013: Formalizing 100 Theorems, www.cs.ru.nl/∼freek/100/index.html.

Zermelo, E., 1908: Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre, I, Mathematische Annalen, 65, pp. 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zucker, J., 1977: Formalization of classical mathematics in Automath. InColloque International de Logique, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 249. Reprinted in Nederpelt et al., 1994, pp. 127–139.Google Scholar