Incoming links: Lean (proof assistant)
They are evil because they produce closed source offline software used by millions: Microsoft Windows.
And also their monopolistic practices: United States v. Microsoft Corp.
So, as put in Video "Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs by Epic Rap Battles of History (2012)" by fake Steve Jobs to fake Bill Gates:
Why'd you name your company after your dick?
However, like all big tech companies with infinite money, they do end up doing some cool things in their research department, Microsoft Research, notably for Ciro Santilli being:
- Lean
- their quantum computing work. C is of course a bad idea, we don't need yet another domain-specific language, Python library based solutions like Qiskit are obviously the way to go
A discussion on the Lean Zulip: leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-general/topic/The.20Math.20Genome.20Project/near/352639129. Lean people are not convinced about the model in general it seems however.
TODO closed source? Really? www.themathgenome.com/pricing
TODO not viewable without login?
Has conjectures feature.
Built by this dude John Mercer: www.linkedin.com/in/johnmercer/. He must be independently wealthy or something? What a hero.
A failed Hacker News self post: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35775071
Ciro Santilli asked: discord.com/channels/1096393420408360989/1096393420408360996/1137047842159079474Owner:So apparently there will be proof checking, but nodependencies between proofs, you still have to pull request everywhing back and face the pain.
Does the website actually automatically check the formal proofs, or is this intended to be implemented at some point? And if yes, is it intended to allow proofs to depend on other proofs of the website (possibly by other people)
Hi Ciro, yes we will be releasing in-browser proof assistant environments/checkers (e.g. Lean). Our goal is not to replace the underlying open-source repos (e.g. Mathlib) so the main dependency will be on the current repos; then when statement formalizations and proofs come in and are certified they can be PR'd to the respective repos. So we will be the source of truth for the informal latex code but only a stepping stone and orchestration layer on the way to the respective formal libraries.
Website front-end for a mathematical formal proof system Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01
When Ciro Santilli first learnt the old Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and the idea of formal proofs, his teenager mind was completely blown.
Finally, there it was: a proper and precise definition of mathematics, including a definition of integers, reals and limits!
Theorems are strings, proofs are string manipulations, and axioms are the initial strings that you can use.
Once proved, press a button on your computer, and the proof is automatically verified. No messy complicated "group of savants" reading it for 4 years and looking for flaws!
There are a few proof assistant systems with several theorems in their Git tracked standard library. The hottest ones circa 2020 are:
- github.com/HOL-Theorem-Prover/HOL
- github.com/seL4/isabelle. Rumours have it that this is "uncompilable" from source without blobs. It does however offer a very rich IDE.
- github.com/coq/coq
- Metamath this one is likely an older and less powerful system, but the web presentation and tutorial are very good! Source: github.com/metamath/metamath-exe Here is a proof that 2 + 2 equals 4: us.metamath.org/mpeuni/2p2e4.html
- Lean
- www.bookofproofs.org/branches/fpl-formal-proving-language/ from BookofProofs
And here are some more interesting links:
- github.com/awesomo4000/awesome-provable an awesome list of formal stuff
- devel.isa-afp.org/ Isabelle Archive of Formal Proofs. A curated list of Isabelle proofs, with minimal web UI. This is almost what we need, but without the manual curation, and with a better web UI.
- www.cs.ru.nl/~freek/100/ list of how many of the "arbitrarily" selected the Hundred Greatest Theorems by Paul and Jack Abad (1999) had been proved in several formal systems, serving therefore as a benchmark of sorts
However, as expressed by the QED manifesto, is unbelievable that there isn't one awesome and dominating website, that hosts all those proofs, possibly an on the browser editor, and which all mathematicians in the world use as the one golden reference of mathematics to rule them all!
Just imagine the impact.
Standard library maintainers don't have to deal with the impossible question of what is "beautiful" or "useful" enough mathematics to deserve merged: users just push content to the online database, and star what they like!
We then just use GitHub-like namespaces for each person's theorem, e.g. "cirosantilli/fundmaental-theorem-of-calculus" or "johndoe/fundmaental-theorem-of-calculus" so that each person owns their own preferred definition IDs, which others can reuse.
No more endless bikeshedding over what insane level of generality do your analysis theorems need to be (Ciro Santilli attended at talk about Lean where the speaker mentioned this was a problem)!
This would move things more out of the "pull request and Git tracked code" approach, into a more "database with entries" version of things.
Furthermore, it is just a matter of time until the "single standard library" approach starts to break down, as the git clone becomes impossibly large. At this point, people have to start publishing separate packages. And when this happens, you would need to retest every package that you add to your project. This is why a centralized database is just inevitable at some point, it just scales better.
Interested in a conjecture? No problem: just subscribe to its formal statement + all known equivalents, and get an email on your inbox when it gets proved!
Are you a garage mathematician and have managed to prove a hard theorem, but no "real" mathematician will read your proof because your unknown? Fuck that, just publish it on the system and let it get auto verified. Overnight fame awaits.
Notation incompatibility hell? A thing of the past, just automatically convert to your preferred representation.
Such a system would be the perfect companion to OurBigBook.com. Just like computer code offers the backbone of Linux Kernel Module Cheat Linux kernel tutorials, a formal proof system website would be the backbone of mathematics tutorials! You know what, if OurBigBook.com becomes insanely successful, Ciro is going to add this to it later on.
Furthermore, it would not be too hard to achieve this system!
All we would need would be something analogous to a package registry like PyPI or NodeJS' registry.
Then, each person can publish packages containing proofs.
Packages can rely on other packages that contain pre-requisites definition or theorem.
Packages are just regular git repos, with some metadata. One notable metadata would be a human readable description of the theorems the package provides.
The package registry would then in addition to most package registries have a CI server in it, that checks the correctness of all proofs, generates a web-page showing each theorem.
All proofs can be conditional: the package registry simply shows clearly what axiom set a theorem is based on.
This is a close as we can get to Erdős' book.
Maybe Ciro will just stuff this into OurBigBook.com once that takes over the world.
This project could be seen as a more automated/less moderated version of ProofWiki.
Bibliography:
- The Math Genome Project has very similar end goals. Apparently it will run proofs on server against the stdlib, but not allow one proof to depend on another, so in the end you still have to pull request everything back. Also there may be moderation forever, unclear. Ciro tried to create a dummy lolol theorem without any correct syntax and it just became private. Also apparently every single proof needs corresponding LaTeX manually written to be accepted. Cowards!
- math.stackexchange.com/questions/1767070/what-is-the-current-state-of-formalized-mathematics/3297536#3297536
- math.stackexchange.com/questions/2747661/why-is-there-not-a-system-for-computer-checking-mathematical-proofs-yet-2018
- stackoverflow.com/questions/19421234/how-do-i-generate-latex-from-isabelle-hol
- stackoverflow.com/questions/30152139/what-are-the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-the-isabelle-proof-assistant-compared-t
- arxiv.org/abs/2102.03044 SPIRG, a decentralized version of this