4 ms·
> How proofs work is really simple idgi. If you do your 101 logic class often you learn natural deduction, and how do you formalize natural deduction in a comp
by runeblaze 1y ago
> How proofs work is really simple
idgi. If you do your 101 logic class often you learn natural deduction, and how do you formalize natural deduction in a computer system? (Hint: type theory is "natural" for this).
Also how proofs work is far from simple.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- auggierose 1y agoHow proofs work is pretty simple, and you don't need types to do natural deduction. As usual, types only complicate the picture. Here is a more straightforward and natural way to treat natural deduction: http://abstractionlogic.com http://abstractionlogic.com .
- runeblaze 1y agosure of course one does not need types to do natural deduction… if you throw what you showed me to your average maths undergrad in the US they will get confused — I truly don’t see how proofs are simple
- auggierose 1y agoIt is a matter of presentation and what people are used to. In particular, in abstraction logic, in the simplest (and most general!) case, you only have these proof rules: Axiom, Assume, AddAnte, BindAnte, FreeAnte, InferAnte. If we just focus on this case, we can choose simpler names for these rules: Axiom, Assume, Add, Bind, Free, Infer. That's it. That is all there is to proof.