A terminal AI coding assistant with a built-in math formalization engine — describe a problem in plain language and it converts it into a Lean 4 theorem and attempts a formal proof.
Or, more accurately: it's not possible to apply copyright to generated code; if you don't release it, it's a trade secret, but if you do, people can use it how they please.
I’ve written a lot of Lean for economic modeling (so take this with the caveat that it’s not frontier-level mathematics research) but I think this problem is overstated. If you follow good engineering standards—keep primitives composable and design abstraction well—it’s not so hard to understand enough Lean to ensure the formalized statement is correct.
In part this is possible because mathlib is very well-designed and has a very good API (in no small part because they’re willing to make breaking changes all the time), so building on top of it makes life much easier.
[OP] homarp | 7 hours ago
seunosewa | 6 hours ago
rawland | 6 hours ago
muds | 6 hours ago
owlbite | 5 hours ago
a2ff6eeb0 | 4 hours ago
a2ff6eeb0 | 2 hours ago
jrflo | 4 hours ago
ljwoods2 | 2 hours ago
[1] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd04xx/EWD427.PDF
eisbaw | 5 hours ago
bayesnet | 2 hours ago
In part this is possible because mathlib is very well-designed and has a very good API (in no small part because they’re willing to make breaking changes all the time), so building on top of it makes life much easier.
wanderlust123 | 43 minutes ago
philipfweiss | 4 hours ago
fractorial | 3 hours ago
Value is in how maths is communicated: The process, frustrations, triumphs, etc.
We have to able to take generated formalizations from “it compiles” to “it is correct” before crystallizing them.
andxor | an hour ago
Do you have a formal proof of that?
skew-aberration | 16 minutes ago
By the standard methods of modal logic, it follows that it is possible that the output is garbage and therefore slop by definition. QED.