3 ms·
In principle, LLMs can do this already. If you ask Claude to express this in simple words, you will get this translation of the theorem: "If applying f to
by practal 1y ago
In principle, LLMs can do this already. If you ask Claude to express this in simple words, you will get this translation of the theorem:
"If applying f to things makes them red whenever they're not already red, then there must exist something that is red AND stays red after applying f twice to it."
Now the proof is easy to see, because it is the first thing you would try, and it works: If you have a red thing x, then either x and f(f(x)) are both red, or f(x) and f(f(f(x)) are both red. If x is not red, then f(x) is red. Qed.
You will be able to interact like this, instead of using tactics.
- spider-mario 1y agoFor anyone else for whom the justification for “either x and f(f(x)) are both red, or f(x) and f(f(f(x)) are both red” was not immediately obvious: H: ∀x.(r(x)→⊥)→r(f(x)) goal: ∃x.r(x)∧r(f(f(x))) If f(f(x)) is red: x is a solution (QED). Otherwise: f(f(x)) not being red means f(x) must have been (by contraposition of H) and that f(f(f(x))) will be (by H); therefore, f(x) is a solution.