2 ms·
The original proof I posted was organized slightly differently from your argument. Some of those 120 lines were commentary, blanks and things like "qed". Also,
by yomritoyj 8y ago
The original proof I posted was organized slightly differently from your argument.
Some of those 120 lines were commentary, blanks and things like "qed". Also, I tried to used small steps in the proof. You can have a more concise proof if you are willing to take larger steps and rely more on automation. The cost is that the justification for the steps might become opaque to humans.
Here is a second attempt at the proof that follows your argument and uses more automation. It is much shorter than the original:
https://gist.github.com/jmoy/27bcc72fb5a3f871b72c31e81bccb55f https://gist.github.com/jmoy/27bcc72fb5a3f871b72c31e81bccb55...
- antpls 8y ago> The cost is that the justification for the steps might become opaque to humans. If the machine can tell "this proof is correct". Does the proof really need to be reviewed by humans? As long the human can easily read the problem which is proved, if the machine says the proof is complete, it should be good enough.
- benchaney 8y agoIt has not been proven that the software is correct.