It’s easy to give an algorithm that generates a proof of a mathematical theorem that’s provable: choose a formal language with definitions and axioms, and for successive values of n, enumerate all sequences of mathematical deductions of length n, halting if the final line of a sequence is the statement of the the desired theorem. But the running time of this algorithm is exponential in the length of the proof, and the algorithm is infeasible to implement except for theorems with very short proofs.
Yes this approach is valid, but modern theorem provers more commonly reduce theorem proving to a sequence of SAT problems. Very roughly, for a first order sentence P, the idea is to search for counterexamples alternately to P and ~P in models of size 1,2,… . SAT solvers have improved rapidly over the past decade (http://www.satcompetition.org/), though they are still not good enough to facilitate theorem provers that can solve interesting math problems.
Yes this approach is valid, but modern theorem provers more commonly reduce theorem proving to a sequence of SAT problems. Very roughly, for a first order sentence P, the idea is to search for counterexamples alternately to P and ~P in models of size 1,2,… . SAT solvers have improved rapidly over the past decade (http://www.satcompetition.org/), though they are still not good enough to facilitate theorem provers that can solve interesting math problems.
I highly recommend the concise and excellent “Handbook of Practical Logic and Automated Reasoning” http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/atp/