Maybe my understanding of Lean is wrong; I'm thinking of it as a programming language but for Math.
Classification of Finite Simple Groups Formalized in Lean (cfsg.axiommath.ai)
mlmonkey 16 hours ago
tyromaniac 16 hours ago
bananaflag 16 hours ago
Probably this will be done in some form in the coming months.
thaumasiotes 14 hours ago
Note that mathlib currently includes duplicates of many theorems; I believe deduplication is an active goal (if not one seeing much labor right now).
xelxebar 4 hours ago
Metamath has done quite a bit or primary research into this. Theorems often have a slightly non-standard, but more general form.
One can ask things like, "what is the equivalent of functional programming?" Or, "is there global state?" It's a perspective on reverse mathematics.
jonath_laurent 16 hours ago
One challenge is assembling everything into a coherent whole, since the same informal concept can be formalised in slightly different but incompatible ways.
whatshisface 7 hours ago
hujun236 6 hours ago
petesergeant 2 hours ago
fspeech 2 hours ago
QuesnayJr 15 hours ago
aureianimus 14 hours ago
Someone 12 hours ago
LLMs can do smarter searches, and will likely find proofs for most of them, but are not guaranteed to find a proof.
sebzim4500 16 hours ago
The original proof was a collaboration of ~100 mathematicians, if Tao is correct then we should expect to see more such collaborations in the future like we do in e.g. physics.
QuesnayJr 15 hours ago
Davidzheng 9 hours ago
m_j_g 9 hours ago
HappyPanacea 9 hours ago
abstractanimal 7 hours ago
anon291 5 hours ago
edflsafoiewq 5 hours ago
Ericson2314 5 hours ago
What you mean it say is that Lean is not a HoTT, and Mathlib has tons of classical reasoning (excluded middle, axiom of choice).
I don't think it's too late at all for HoTT. In fact, I think the AI companies will find trying to crank out more new math which is out of distribution in a funky way a highly useful exercise.
compacct27 12 hours ago
senderista 13 hours ago
pfdietz 16 hours ago
bwestergard 16 hours ago
sebzim4500 15 hours ago
Panoramix 13 hours ago
sebzim4500 13 hours ago
In this case the statement is unusually complicated but still much much easier to verify than the proof itself.
kenferry 10 hours ago
An error in the formalization would be a bug in lean. Which, as we know, certainly seems plausible (I've mused on if these giant proofs are incentivizing LLMs to find lean bugs to exploit), but at least it's a smaller surface area.
adrianN 6 hours ago
anon291 5 hours ago
Humans have to establish trust in this.
After that, the rest of the language is written. Yes it is possible the type inference engine is broken but in that case the kernel will reject it
cvoss 11 hours ago
curt15 15 hours ago
pfdietz 14 hours ago
cubefox 13 hours ago
pfdietz 12 hours ago
cubefox 11 hours ago
cvoss 10 hours ago
The article refers to its use of the "first-generation proof". It would seem this proof is too large to be truly known by one person, and the group of people who "collectively knew" it grew old and started to die. Since its original formulation, mathematicians began to compile, consolidate, and revise the proof into a 2nd generation digested form (estimated to be 5000 pages instead of tens of thousands). But that effort was still so monumental in its own right that a 3rd gen proof project began to digest the 2nd gen proof before the 2nd gen proof was even finished. I believe both the 2nd and 3rd gen projects are still ongoing.
It will be interesting to see how small the proof gets once we finish learning how to obtain these results "efficiently" with the benefit of hindsight.
sebzim4500 9 hours ago
Also don't discount the fact that people would learn how to do this kind of project, currently no one really knows how to decide what definitions work best, what should be reducible, what should be part of a public api and what should be local to a module, etc.
gggg_g_g__g 11 hours ago
claudismusa 9 hours ago
richard_chase 5 hours ago
vessenes 10 hours ago
sleepyams 10 hours ago
jbaber 10 hours ago
vatsachak 16 hours ago
pixl97 16 hours ago
QuesnayJr 15 hours ago
contubernio 15 hours ago
bamb008 15 hours ago
>However, there were 34 noteworthy deviations from the published record that needed to be resolved, the most substantial of which related to the Unbalanced Group Theorem.
[1]https://axiommath.ai/research/the-enormous-theorem-formalize...
xiaodai 5 hours ago
sdenton4 2 hours ago
esafak 13 hours ago
v3ai 15 hours ago