3 ms·
It's great that important discoveries like this can now routinely be accompanies by formalized proofs. The fact that it's being released alongside a Lean proof
by Reubend 23d ago
It's great that important discoveries like this can now routinely be accompanies by formalized proofs. The fact that it's being released alongside a Lean proof from Day 1, rather than the Lean proof being released months or years later, is super helpful for verifying that it's correct.
- imbusy111 23d agoI feel sorry for whoever has to read and understand the solution. It looks like the typical convoluted unreadable mess I see the models generate for software. It might be technically correct, but gaining insight from it is just intellectual hell.
- nradov 23d agoThere's an opportunity to build a Lean "optimizer" which automatically simplifies existing proofs.
- stabbles 23d agoYeah, code golfing for lean would be amazing, especially if they can make the proof to Fourier's Last Theorem fit in the margin. Extra credits if it is proven that the proof cannot be reduced any further.
- rfgplk 23d agoSkill issue. Also lean is meant to be executed, not read.
- arodev 23d agoi think they're talking about the writeup
- oinoom 23d agoits important to read it anyway because there have been and will continue to be errors in the construction of the proof software itself. which leads ai and humans alike to prove things that arent true
- professoretc 23d agoA proof is not like a program. The goal of a program is to "do the thing", thus you can make the argument that it doesn't matter what the code looks like as long as its works right. But the goal of a proof isn't to "do the thing" (where "the thing" is just to print Yes or No), it's to communicate. An unintelligible proof is really just a first draft.
- Jblx2 23d ago>A proof is not like a program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...