3 ms·
This is extremely shallow. This guy deliberately focuses on the most tabloid-style reporting of the HoTT book he could find, a New Scientist piece, and then use
by zepolud 13y ago
This is extremely shallow. This guy deliberately focuses on the most tabloid-style reporting of the HoTT book he could find, a New Scientist piece, and then uses it to attack the book itself for having unsubstantiated grandiose claims. Well, guess what -- you're reading a New Scientist article, what did you expect?
Perhaps it would be more befitting to a person in his position (a CS professor, it appears) to actually critique the book itself. Judging by his rant, it's doubtful he even read it. Otherwise he would have known that the most controversial thing about it is a preference of constructive proof, when possible, as they are generally both more illuminating and rely on fewer assumptions.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoMore broadly it seems that he's oblivious to the field of automated theorem proving altogether. Why would people devote their lives to ATP if it weren't useful? Of course humans need to derive insight from proofs, but it's also important for them not to have mistakes.
- tome 13y agoIs he really attacking the book, though? "I feel compelled to say something about not his work, but the New Scientist article. The article is at best in my opinion misleading."