[roenxi]

You're looking for the practical answer, but philosophically it isn't possible to translate an informal statement into a formal one 'correctly'. It is informal, ie, vaguely specified. The only certain questions are if the formal axioms and results are interesting which is independent of the informal formalisation and that can only be established by inspecting the the proof independently of the informal spec.

[wizzwizz4]

Philosophically, this is not true in general, but that's for trivial reasons: "how many integers greater than 7 are blue?" doesn't correspond to a formal question. It is absolutely true in many specific cases. Most problems posed by a mathematician will correspond to exactly one formal proposition, within the context of a given formal system. This problem is unusual, in that it was originally misspecified.

[red75prime]

I suppose there's no formally defined procedure that accepts a natural language statement and outputs either its formalization or "misspecified". And "absolutely true" means "the vast majority of mathematicians agree that there's only one formal proposition that corresponds to this statement".

[varjag]

I think you suppose wrong. A statement like "the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides" doesn't seam out of reach of an algorithmic procedure like a classical NLP.

[red75prime]

Sure, we can write a procedure that recognizes some formal grammar, which intersects with the natural language. Defining the formal grammar that fully captures the current natural language understanding of the mathematical community is a bit harder.

[wizzwizz4]

This problem was even worse: it's matched by the formal grammar, but the naïve formalisation has a trivial answer, so it is clearly not what was intended.

[NetMageSCW]

That clearly may be doing some heavy lifting. It is assumed that trivial answer wasn’t what was intended for the problem, but unless someone asked Erdos, I don’t think we know.