The author appears to have a serious misconception about Lean, which is surprising since he seems to be quite knowledgeable in the area.
Specifically, the author seems to be under the impression that Lean retains proof objects and the final proof to be checked is one massive proof object, with all definitions unfolded: "these massive terms are unnecessary, but are kept anyway" (TFA). This couldn't be further from the truth. Lean implements exactly the same optimization as the author cherishes in LCF; metaphorically, that "The steps of a proof would be performed but not recorded, like a mathematics lecturer using a small blackboard who rubs out earlier parts of proofs to make space for later ones" (quoted by blog post linked from TFA). Once a `theorem` (as opposed to a `def`) is written in Lean4, then the proof object is no longer used. This is not merely an optimization but a critical part of the language: theorems are opaque. If the proof term is not discarded (and I'm not sure it isn't), then this is only for the sake of user observability in the interactive mode; the kernel does not and cannot care what the proof object was.
For the HN crowd who are generally programmers but not necessarily mathematicians, it’s more relevant to consider the programming side of things. There is a very good book (one I haven’t finished unfortunately) that covers Lean from a functional programming perspective rather than proving mathematics perspective: https://leanprover.github.io/functional_programming_in_lean/
I am learning Lean myself so forgive me as I have an overly rosy picture of it as a beginner. My current goal is to write and prove the kind of code normal programmers would write, such as real-world compression/decompression algorithms as in the recent lean-zip example: https://github.com/kiranandcode/lean-zip/blob/master/Zip/Nat...
I recall an experiment in proving software correct from the 1990s that found more errors in the final proof annotations than in the software it had proved correct.
Then, I foresee 2 other obstacles, 1 of which may disappear:
1. Actually knowing what the software is supposed to do is hard. Understanding what the users actually want to do and what the customers are paying to do --which aren't necessarily the same thing--is complex
2. The quality of the work of many software developers is abysmal and I don't know why they would be better at a truth language than they are at Java or some other language.
Objection 2 may disappear to be replaced with AI systems with the attention to do what needs to be done. So perhaps things will change in that to make it worthwhile...
I think the hope for 2 is that those programmers would be forced into inaction by the language safety, rather than being allowed to cause problems.
I don't really think that works either, because there's endless ways to add complication even if you can't worsen behavior. At best they might be caught eventually... but anyone who has worked in a large tech company knows at least a few people who are somehow still employed years later, despite constant ineptitude. Play The Game well enough and it's probably always possible.
Re 1: Discussing and guiding the desirable theorems for general-purpose programs has been a major challenge for us. Proofs for their own sake (bad?) vs glorious general results (good but hard?). Actual human guidance there can be critical there at least for now.
Isabelle/HOL as a language is nice, but the tooling has deep flaws even outside the pure desktop-first app approach.
The language is different (not necessarily better) in comparison to Lean, but I do agree with some of the points on dependent types. It seems both languages mostly just made different tradeoffs, which imo, were fair and have shaped them into quite efficient tools for their domains. The domain of "proofs" is large and different paradigms just have different strengths/weaknesses, Lean just specialized for a different part of this space.
Sledgehammer is nice but probably just a question of time until an equivalent can be ported/created for Lean. It might also be nice to use for explorative phases but is a resource hog, it also makes proofs concise but I would usually rather see the full chain of steps directly for a proof in the published code instead of a semi-magic "by sledgehammer".
Working on Isabelle itself however is painful (especially communicating with developers) in comparison to Lean. Things like "we don't have bugs just unexpected behaviour" on the mailing list just seems childish/unprofessional. The callout to RAM consumption of Lean and related systems is also a bit of joke when looking at Isabelle's gluttony for RAM.
> but I would usually rather see the full chain of steps directly for a proof in the published code instead of a semi-magic "by sledgehammer".
One issue with this is that coming up with a quickly-checkable certificate for UNSAT is not exactly a trivial problem. It's effectively the same as writing a formal proof.
I think what's interesting about Lean is that Lean is a language, and what most people are talking about is a library called Mathlib. From what I've read about Mathlib, the creators are very pragmatic, which is why they encode classical logic in Lean types, with only a bit of intuitionistic logic[1].
[1] for those unfamiliar with math lingo, classical logic has a lot of powerful features. One of those is the law of the excluded middle, which says something can't be true and false at the same time. That means not not true is true, which you can't say in intuitionistic logic. Another feature is proof by contradiction, where you can prove something by showing that the alternative is unsound. There's quite a few results that depend on these techniques, so trying to do everything in intuitionistic logic has run into a lot of roadblocks.
> I think what's interesting about Lean is that Lean is a language, and what most people are talking about is a library called Mathlib. From what I've read about Mathlib, the creators are very pragmatic, which is why they encode classical logic in Lean types, with only a bit of intuitionistic logic
The computer science folks are now working on their own CSLib. https://www.cslib.iohttps://www.github.com/leanprover/cslib Given that intuitionistic logic is really only relevant to computational content (the whole point of it is to be able to turn a mathematical argument into a construction that could in some sense be computed with), it will be interesting to see how they deal with the issue. Note that if you write algorithms in Lean, you are already limited to some kind of construction, and perhaps that's all the logic you need for that purpose.
Classical logic has plenty of limitations/roadblocks, all logics do. Logic isn't a unified domain, but an infinite beach of structural shards, each providing a unique lens of study.
Classical logic was rejected in computer science because the non-constructive nature made it inappropriate for an ostensibly constructive domain. Theoretical mathematics has plenty of uses to prove existences and then do nothing with the relevant object. A computer, generally, is more interested in performing operations over objects, which requires more than proving the object exists.
Additionally, while you can implement evaluation of classical logic with a machine, it's extremely unwieldy and inefficient, and allows for a level of non-rigor that proves to be a massive footgun.
But proving the object exists is still useful, of course: it effectively means you can assume an oracle that constructs this object without hitting any contradiction. Talking about oracles is useful in turn since it's a very general way of talking about side-conditions that might make something easier to construct.
Of course. Though it's also important to note: whether or not an object exists is dependent on the logic being utilized itself, which is to say nothing of how even if the object holds some structural equivalent in the given logic of attention, it might not have all provable structure shared between the two, and that's before we get into how the chosen axioms on top of the logical system also mutate all of this.
It's not that classical logic is useless, it's just that it's not particularly appropriate to choose as the basis for a system built on algorithms. This goes both ways. Set theory was taken as the foundation of arithmetic, et al. because type theory was simply too unwieldy for human beings scrawling algebras on blackboards.
Set theory was chosen because it was a compatively simple proof of concept. You don't really refer to the foundation when scrawling algebra on a blackboard the way you would with a proof assistant, and this actually causes all sorts of issues down the line (it's a key motivation for things like HoTT).
Classical logic isn’t rejected in computer science. Computer science papers don’t generally care if their proofs are non-constructive, just like in mathematics.
This entire thread is making clear that constructivists want to speak on behalf of everyone while in the real word the vast majority of mathematicians or logicians don’t belong to their niche school of mathematics/philosophy.
Intuitionism is just disallowing the law of the excluded middle (that propositions are either true or they are not true). Disallowing non-constructive proofs is a related system to intuitionism called “constructivism”. There are rigorous formulations of mathematics that are constructive, intuitionist or even strict finitist.
It’s not intuitive, it’s intuitionist. I’m not saying that to nitpick it’s just important to make the distinction in this case because it really isn’t intuitive at all in the usual sense.
Why you would use it is it’s an alternative axiomatic framework so you get different results. The analogy is in geometry if you exclude the parallel postulate but use all of the other axioms from Euclid you get hyperbolic geometry. It’s a different geometry and is a worthy subject of study. One isn’t right and the other wrong, although people get very het up about intuitionism and other alternative axiomatic frameworks in mathematics like constructivism and finitism.
As far as I understand it, classical mathematics is non-constructive. This means there are quite a few proofs that show that some value exists, but not what that value is. And in mathematics, a proof often depends on the existence of some value (you can't do an operation on nothing).
The thing is it can be quite useful to always know what a value is, and there's some cool things you can do when you know how to get a value (such as create an algorithm to get said value). I'm still learning this stuff myself, but inuitionistic logic gets you a lot of interesting properties.
> As far as I understand it, classical mathematics is non-constructive.
It's not as simple as that. Classical mathematics can talk about whether some property is computationally decidable (possibly with further tweaks, e.g. modulo some oracle, or with complexity constraints) or whether some object is computable (see above), express decision/construction procedures etc.; it's just incredibly clunky to do so, and it may be worthwhile to introduce foundations that make it natural to talk about these things.
Would it be fair to say then that classical mathematics does not require computability, so it requires a lot more bookkeeping, while intuitionistic logic requires constructivism, so it's the air you live and breathe in, which is much more natural?
Intuitionistic logic is not really constrained to talking about constructive things: you just stuff everything else in the negative fragment. Does that ultimately make sense? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps that goes too far in obscuring the inherent duality of classical logic, which is still very useful.
In constructive logic, a proof of "A or B" consists of a pair (T,P). If T equals 0, then P proves A. If T equals 1, then P proves B. This directly corresponds to tagged union data types in programming. A "Float or Int" consists of a pair (Tag, Union). If Tag equals 0, then Union stores a Float. If Tag equals 1, then Union stores an Int.
In classical logic, a proof of "A or not A" requires nothing, a proof out of thin air.
Obviously, we want to stick with useful data structures, so we use constructive logic for programming.
The difference only becomes evident when proving liveness/termination (since if your algorithm terminates successfully it has to construct something, and it only has to be proven that it's not incorrect) and then it turns out that these proofs do use something quite aligned to constructive logic.
How have you used the Curry Howard correspondence to make proving the correctness of non-trivial algorithms easier (than, say, Isabelle/HOL or TLA+ proofs)?
I think stuff like "synthetic topology", "synthetic differential geometry", "synthetic computability theory", "synthetic algebraic geometry" are the most promising applications at the moment.
It can also find commonalities between different abstract areas of maths, since there are a lot of exotic interpretations of intuitionistic logic, and doing mathematics within intuitionistic logic allows one to prove results which are true in all these interpretations simultaneously.
I'm not sure if intuitionism has a "killer app" yet, but you could say the same about every piece of theory ever, at least over its initial period of development. I think the broad lesson is that the rules of logic are a "coordinate system" for doing mathematics, and changing the rules of logic is like changing to a different coordinate system, which might make certain things easier. In some areas of maths, like modern Algebraic Geometry, the standard rules of logic might be why the area is borderline impenetrable.
These are more like computational-ish interpretations of sheaves, topological spaces, synthetic geometry etc. The link of intuitionistic logic to computation is close enough that these things don't really make it "non-computational". One can definitely argue though that many mathematicians are finding out that things like "expressing X in a topos" are effectively roundabout ways of discussing constructive logic and constructivity concerns.
This isn’t quite right. Classical logic doesn’t permit going from “it is impossible to disprove” to “true”. For example, the continuum hypothesis cannot be disproven in ZFC (which is formulated in classical logic (the axiom of choice implies the law of the excluded middle)), but that doesn’t let us conclude that the continuum hypothesis is true.
Rather, in classical logic, if you can show that a statement being false would imply a contradiction, you can conclude that the statement is true.
In intuitionistic logic, you would only conclude that the statement is not false.
And, I’m not sure identifying “true” with “provable” in intuitionistic logic is entirely right either?
In intuitionistic logic, you only have a proof if you have a constructive proof.
But, like, that doesn’t mean that if you don’t have a constructive proof, that the statement is therefore not true?
If a statement is independent of your axioms when using classical logic, it is also independent of your axioms when using intuitionistic logic, as intuitionistic logic has a subset of the allowed inference rules.
If a statement is independent, then there is no proof of it, and there is no proof of its negation. If a proposition being true was the same thing as there being a proof of it, then a proposition that is independent would be not true, and its negation would also be not true.
So, it would be both not true and not false, and these together yield a contradiction.
Intuitionistic logic only lets you conclude that a proposition is true if you have a constructive/intuitionistic proof of it. It doesn’t say that a proposition for which there is no proof, is therefore not true.
As a core example of this, in intuitionistic logic, one doesn’t have the LEM, but, one certainly doesn’t have that the LEM is false. In fact, one has that the LEM isn’t false.
Ah, so if you had ¬p, and you negated it, you could technically construct ¬¬p in intuitionist logic, but only in classical logic could you reduce that to p? Since truth in classical logic means what you said here, where you didn't actually construct what p is, so you can't reduce it in intuitionistic logic.
> One of those is the law of the excluded middle, which says something can't be true and false at the same time.
That would be the law of non-contradiction (LNC). The law of the excluded middle (LEM) says that for every proposition it is true or its negation is true.
LEM: For all p, p or not p.
LNC: For all p, not (p and not p).
Classical logic satisfies both, intuitionistic logic only satisfies LNC.
Which logic are you saying “can’t encode the speculative moment”?
I think the two logics can emulate one another? Or, at the very least, can describe what the other concludes. I know intuitionistic logic can have classical logic embedded in it through some sort of “put double negation on everything”. I think if you add some sort of modal operator to classical logic you could probably emulate intuitionistic logic in a similar way?
You don't even need to add a modal operator since modal logic itself can be embedded in classical logic via possible-world semantics. Of course the whole thing becomes a bit clunky - but that's the argument for starting with intuitionistic logic, where you wouldn't need to do that.
> Another feature is proof by contradiction, where you can prove something by showing that the alternative is unsound.
As far as lean is concerned, this isn't an example of classical logic. It's just the definition of "not" - to say that some proposition implies a contradiction, and to say that that proposition is untrue, are the same statement.
Most "something"s that you'd want to prove this way will require a step from classical logic, but not all of them. (¬p ⟶ F) ⟶ p is classical; (p ⟶ F) ⟶ ¬p is constructive.
More generally, any negative statements can be proven classically, even in intuitionistic logic. Intuitionistic logic does not have the De Morgan duality found in classical logic, you have to go to linear logic if you want to recover that while keeping constructivity. (The "negative" in linear logic actually models requesting some object, which is dual to constructing it. The connection with the usual meaning of "negative" in logic involves a similar duality between "proposing" a proof and "challenging" it.)
So proof by contradiction proves ¬p, but it requires the law of excluded middle to prove p (in the case of ¬p -> F)? I didn't realize that was constructive in the first case.
Well, at some point you have to define what you mean by "proof by contradiction". I was responding to your statement, "prove something by showing that the alternative is unsound". You can prove that something is false that way without needing classical logic.
For what's happening with `¬p -> F`, recall that this is by definition the statement `¬¬p`; classical logic will let you conclude `p` from `¬¬p`, or it will let you apply the law of the excluded middle to conclude that either `p` or `¬p` must be the case, and then show that since it isn't `¬p`, it must be `p`. (Again, not really different approaches, but perhaps different in someone's mental model.)
On the other hand, if you have `p -> F`, that is by definition the statement `¬p`, and if you've established `¬p`, you've already finished proving that p is false.
Something that I find particularly absurd about the hypothetical distinction between intuitionistic and classical logic is that intuitionistic logic is sufficient to prove `¬p` from `¬¬¬p`. (This is quite similar to how 'proof by contradiction' is constructive if you're proving a negative but not if you're proving a positive; it might be the same result.) So for any proposition that can be restated in a "negative" way, the law of the excluded middle remains true in intuitionistic logic. The difference lies only in "fundamentally positive" propositions. (You can do that proof yourself at https://incredible.pm/ ; it's in section 4, `((A→⊥)→⊥)→⊥` -> `A→⊥`.)
> Martin-Löf designed his type theory with the aim that AC should be provable and in his landmark Constructive mathematics and computer programming presented a detailed derivation of it as his only example. Briefly, if (∀x : A)(∃y :B) C(x,y) then (∃f : A → B)(∀x : A) C(x, f(x)).
> Spoiling the party was Diaconescu’s proof in 1975 that in a certain category-theoretic setting, the axiom of choice implied LEM and therefore classical logic. His proof is reproducible in the setting of intuitionistic set theory and seems to have driven today’s intuitionists to oppose AC.
> It’s striking that AC was seen not merely as acceptable but clear by the likes of Bishop, Bridges and Dummett. Now it is being rejected and the various arguments against it have the look of post-hoc rationalisations. Of course, the alternative would be to reject intuitionism altogether. This is certainly what mathematicians have done: in my experience, the overwhelming majority of constructive mathematicians are not mathematicians at all. They are computer scientists.
Constructivists don't call a proof of ¬p a "proof by contradiction", they just call it a proof of ¬p. To them, a "proof by contradiction" of some p that isn't in the negative fragment is just nonsense, because constructive logic doesn't have the kind of duality that even makes it necessary to talk about contradiction as a kind of proof to begin with. They'd see the classical use of "proof by contradiction" as a clunky way of saying "I've actually only proven a negative statement, and now I can use De Morgan duality to pretend that I proved a positive."
For every "well of course, just...X, that's what everybody does" group-think argument there's a cogent case to be made for at least considering the alternatives. Even if you ultimately reject the alternatives and go with the crowd, you will be better off knowing the landscape.
Every time you go off the beaten path, you're locking yourself into less documentation, more bugs (since there's less exploration of the dark corners), and fewer people you can go to for help. If you've got 20+ choices to make, picking the standard option is the right choice on average, so you can just do it and move on. You have finite attention, so doing a research report on every dependency means you're never actually working on the core problem.
The exceptions to this are when a) it becomes apparent that the standard tool doesn't actually fit your use case, or b) the standard tool significantly overlaps the core problem you're trying to solve.
It’s been decades since I could claim to know anything about this field so I’m probably completely wrong in how I read this, but the idea that one might build a theorem prover (“ML!”) for one’s non-ML programming language and have the prover itself accidentally be a really good general purpose programming language … is very funny.
The set theorists decided that mathematics is the overarching superdomain over all study of structure. You don't get to pick and choose. Either mathematics is a suburb of logic and these two things are separate, or they're not and ZFC dogmatics need to accept they don't have a monopoly on math.
I of course fully support reinstating logicism, but the same dogmatics love putting up a fight over that as well.
I think the most surprising thing I've learned taking formal math in college is just how much mathematicians are pragmatists (at least for my teacher with sample size n=1). They're much more interested in new ways to think about ideas, with a side effect of proofs for correctness. The proof is more about explaining why something works, not that it does.
I'm going to take a formal logic class in the fall, and my professor said something akin to "definitely take it if you're interested, just be aware that it probably won't come in use in most of the mathematics done today." The thing is the foundations are mostly laid, and people are interested in using said foundations for interesting things, not for constantly revisiting the foundations.
I think this is one reason most mathematicians don't see a need for formal proof assistants, since from their perspective it's one very small part of math, and not the interesting one.
This is not to say that proof assistants are a dead end—I find them fascinating and hope they continue to grow—but there's a reason that they haven't had a ton of traction.
Not even the most dogmatic of the set theorists ever argued mathematics was possible without reason, however. For mathematics, logic is the world, as the copula makes no distinction between substance and existence. In the same sense that the earth is not matter itself, but it is a material thing.
Putting that aside, to make things more clear: computer science is mathematics. Computer scientists are mathematicians. That was a categorization decided long before you and I ever lived. In the sense that you mean, you're only referring to a very small fraction of what "mathematics" refers to In the true sense of the word. It is just as irreconcilably disjointed as Logic is, not unified and fundamentally non-unifiable.
I too think it would be better if "mathematics" was reserved for the gated suburb of ZFC. But that's not the world we live in, courtesy of the same people who pushed ZFC as a foundation to begin with.
The link is exactly what I’m saying. I only hear cs people talk about it.
For mathematicians a proof is a means to an end, or a medium of expression - they care about what they say and why.
The correspondence isn’t about C programs corresponding to proofs in math papers. It’s a very a specific claim about kinds of formal systems which don’t resemble how math or programming is done.
Terence Tao, one of the most important living mathematicians, specifically embraces Lean and has been helping the community embrace it.
What you've done here is an overgeneralization. "People who like math" and "people who like computers" are massive demographics with considerable overlap.
Specifically, the author seems to be under the impression that Lean retains proof objects and the final proof to be checked is one massive proof object, with all definitions unfolded: "these massive terms are unnecessary, but are kept anyway" (TFA). This couldn't be further from the truth. Lean implements exactly the same optimization as the author cherishes in LCF; metaphorically, that "The steps of a proof would be performed but not recorded, like a mathematics lecturer using a small blackboard who rubs out earlier parts of proofs to make space for later ones" (quoted by blog post linked from TFA). Once a `theorem` (as opposed to a `def`) is written in Lean4, then the proof object is no longer used. This is not merely an optimization but a critical part of the language: theorems are opaque. If the proof term is not discarded (and I'm not sure it isn't), then this is only for the sake of user observability in the interactive mode; the kernel does not and cannot care what the proof object was.
I am learning Lean myself so forgive me as I have an overly rosy picture of it as a beginner. My current goal is to write and prove the kind of code normal programmers would write, such as real-world compression/decompression algorithms as in the recent lean-zip example: https://github.com/kiranandcode/lean-zip/blob/master/Zip/Nat...
Then, I foresee 2 other obstacles, 1 of which may disappear:
1. Actually knowing what the software is supposed to do is hard. Understanding what the users actually want to do and what the customers are paying to do --which aren't necessarily the same thing--is complex
2. The quality of the work of many software developers is abysmal and I don't know why they would be better at a truth language than they are at Java or some other language.
Objection 2 may disappear to be replaced with AI systems with the attention to do what needs to be done. So perhaps things will change in that to make it worthwhile...
I don't really think that works either, because there's endless ways to add complication even if you can't worsen behavior. At best they might be caught eventually... but anyone who has worked in a large tech company knows at least a few people who are somehow still employed years later, despite constant ineptitude. Play The Game well enough and it's probably always possible.
The language is different (not necessarily better) in comparison to Lean, but I do agree with some of the points on dependent types. It seems both languages mostly just made different tradeoffs, which imo, were fair and have shaped them into quite efficient tools for their domains. The domain of "proofs" is large and different paradigms just have different strengths/weaknesses, Lean just specialized for a different part of this space.
Sledgehammer is nice but probably just a question of time until an equivalent can be ported/created for Lean. It might also be nice to use for explorative phases but is a resource hog, it also makes proofs concise but I would usually rather see the full chain of steps directly for a proof in the published code instead of a semi-magic "by sledgehammer".
Working on Isabelle itself however is painful (especially communicating with developers) in comparison to Lean. Things like "we don't have bugs just unexpected behaviour" on the mailing list just seems childish/unprofessional. The callout to RAM consumption of Lean and related systems is also a bit of joke when looking at Isabelle's gluttony for RAM.
One issue with this is that coming up with a quickly-checkable certificate for UNSAT is not exactly a trivial problem. It's effectively the same as writing a formal proof.
[1] for those unfamiliar with math lingo, classical logic has a lot of powerful features. One of those is the law of the excluded middle, which says something can't be true and false at the same time. That means not not true is true, which you can't say in intuitionistic logic. Another feature is proof by contradiction, where you can prove something by showing that the alternative is unsound. There's quite a few results that depend on these techniques, so trying to do everything in intuitionistic logic has run into a lot of roadblocks.
The computer science folks are now working on their own CSLib. https://www.cslib.io https://www.github.com/leanprover/cslib Given that intuitionistic logic is really only relevant to computational content (the whole point of it is to be able to turn a mathematical argument into a construction that could in some sense be computed with), it will be interesting to see how they deal with the issue. Note that if you write algorithms in Lean, you are already limited to some kind of construction, and perhaps that's all the logic you need for that purpose.
Classical logic was rejected in computer science because the non-constructive nature made it inappropriate for an ostensibly constructive domain. Theoretical mathematics has plenty of uses to prove existences and then do nothing with the relevant object. A computer, generally, is more interested in performing operations over objects, which requires more than proving the object exists. Additionally, while you can implement evaluation of classical logic with a machine, it's extremely unwieldy and inefficient, and allows for a level of non-rigor that proves to be a massive footgun.
It's not that classical logic is useless, it's just that it's not particularly appropriate to choose as the basis for a system built on algorithms. This goes both ways. Set theory was taken as the foundation of arithmetic, et al. because type theory was simply too unwieldy for human beings scrawling algebras on blackboards.
Why you would use it is it’s an alternative axiomatic framework so you get different results. The analogy is in geometry if you exclude the parallel postulate but use all of the other axioms from Euclid you get hyperbolic geometry. It’s a different geometry and is a worthy subject of study. One isn’t right and the other wrong, although people get very het up about intuitionism and other alternative axiomatic frameworks in mathematics like constructivism and finitism.
The thing is it can be quite useful to always know what a value is, and there's some cool things you can do when you know how to get a value (such as create an algorithm to get said value). I'm still learning this stuff myself, but inuitionistic logic gets you a lot of interesting properties.
It's not as simple as that. Classical mathematics can talk about whether some property is computationally decidable (possibly with further tweaks, e.g. modulo some oracle, or with complexity constraints) or whether some object is computable (see above), express decision/construction procedures etc.; it's just incredibly clunky to do so, and it may be worthwhile to introduce foundations that make it natural to talk about these things.
In classical logic, a proof of "A or not A" requires nothing, a proof out of thin air.
Obviously, we want to stick with useful data structures, so we use constructive logic for programming.
I don't know who "we" are, but most proofs of algorithm correctness use classical logic.
Also, there's nothing "obvious" about what you said unless you want proof objects, and why you'd want that is far from obvious in itself.
I think stuff like "synthetic topology", "synthetic differential geometry", "synthetic computability theory", "synthetic algebraic geometry" are the most promising applications at the moment.
It can also find commonalities between different abstract areas of maths, since there are a lot of exotic interpretations of intuitionistic logic, and doing mathematics within intuitionistic logic allows one to prove results which are true in all these interpretations simultaneously.
I'm not sure if intuitionism has a "killer app" yet, but you could say the same about every piece of theory ever, at least over its initial period of development. I think the broad lesson is that the rules of logic are a "coordinate system" for doing mathematics, and changing the rules of logic is like changing to a different coordinate system, which might make certain things easier. In some areas of maths, like modern Algebraic Geometry, the standard rules of logic might be why the area is borderline impenetrable.
Intuitionist/Constructivist `true` means, "provable".
The question you are asking determines what answers are acceptable.
Why build an airplane, if you already know it must be possible?
Rather, in classical logic, if you can show that a statement being false would imply a contradiction, you can conclude that the statement is true.
In intuitionistic logic, you would only conclude that the statement is not false.
And, I’m not sure identifying “true” with “provable” in intuitionistic logic is entirely right either?
In intuitionistic logic, you only have a proof if you have a constructive proof.
But, like, that doesn’t mean that if you don’t have a constructive proof, that the statement is therefore not true?
If a statement is independent of your axioms when using classical logic, it is also independent of your axioms when using intuitionistic logic, as intuitionistic logic has a subset of the allowed inference rules.
If a statement is independent, then there is no proof of it, and there is no proof of its negation. If a proposition being true was the same thing as there being a proof of it, then a proposition that is independent would be not true, and its negation would also be not true. So, it would be both not true and not false, and these together yield a contradiction.
Intuitionistic logic only lets you conclude that a proposition is true if you have a constructive/intuitionistic proof of it. It doesn’t say that a proposition for which there is no proof, is therefore not true.
As a core example of this, in intuitionistic logic, one doesn’t have the LEM, but, one certainly doesn’t have that the LEM is false. In fact, one has that the LEM isn’t false.
> Intuitionist/Constructivist `true` means, "provable".
This is completely wrong. Excluded-middle `true` means "provable" and only "provable". "Impossible to disprove" is `independent`, not `true`.
That would be the law of non-contradiction (LNC). The law of the excluded middle (LEM) says that for every proposition it is true or its negation is true.
LEM: For all p, p or not p.
LNC: For all p, not (p and not p).
Classical logic satisfies both, intuitionistic logic only satisfies LNC.
I think the two logics can emulate one another? Or, at the very least, can describe what the other concludes. I know intuitionistic logic can have classical logic embedded in it through some sort of “put double negation on everything”. I think if you add some sort of modal operator to classical logic you could probably emulate intuitionistic logic in a similar way?
As far as lean is concerned, this isn't an example of classical logic. It's just the definition of "not" - to say that some proposition implies a contradiction, and to say that that proposition is untrue, are the same statement.
Most "something"s that you'd want to prove this way will require a step from classical logic, but not all of them. (¬p ⟶ F) ⟶ p is classical; (p ⟶ F) ⟶ ¬p is constructive.
Mathlib defines `by_contradiction` as a theorem proving `(¬p → False) → p` for any proposition p. ( https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib4_docs/Mathlib... ) This does require classical logic.
For what's happening with `¬p -> F`, recall that this is by definition the statement `¬¬p`; classical logic will let you conclude `p` from `¬¬p`, or it will let you apply the law of the excluded middle to conclude that either `p` or `¬p` must be the case, and then show that since it isn't `¬p`, it must be `p`. (Again, not really different approaches, but perhaps different in someone's mental model.)
On the other hand, if you have `p -> F`, that is by definition the statement `¬p`, and if you've established `¬p`, you've already finished proving that p is false.
Something that I find particularly absurd about the hypothetical distinction between intuitionistic and classical logic is that intuitionistic logic is sufficient to prove `¬p` from `¬¬¬p`. (This is quite similar to how 'proof by contradiction' is constructive if you're proving a negative but not if you're proving a positive; it might be the same result.) So for any proposition that can be restated in a "negative" way, the law of the excluded middle remains true in intuitionistic logic. The difference lies only in "fundamentally positive" propositions. (You can do that proof yourself at https://incredible.pm/ ; it's in section 4, `((A→⊥)→⊥)→⊥` -> `A→⊥`.)
There's a fun article on this very blog telling a similar story: https://lawrencecpaulson.github.io/2021/11/24/Intuitionism.h...
> Martin-Löf designed his type theory with the aim that AC should be provable and in his landmark Constructive mathematics and computer programming presented a detailed derivation of it as his only example. Briefly, if (∀x : A)(∃y :B) C(x,y) then (∃f : A → B)(∀x : A) C(x, f(x)).
> Spoiling the party was Diaconescu’s proof in 1975 that in a certain category-theoretic setting, the axiom of choice implied LEM and therefore classical logic. His proof is reproducible in the setting of intuitionistic set theory and seems to have driven today’s intuitionists to oppose AC.
> It’s striking that AC was seen not merely as acceptable but clear by the likes of Bishop, Bridges and Dummett. Now it is being rejected and the various arguments against it have the look of post-hoc rationalisations. Of course, the alternative would be to reject intuitionism altogether. This is certainly what mathematicians have done: in my experience, the overwhelming majority of constructive mathematicians are not mathematicians at all. They are computer scientists.
For every "well of course, just...X, that's what everybody does" group-think argument there's a cogent case to be made for at least considering the alternatives. Even if you ultimately reject the alternatives and go with the crowd, you will be better off knowing the landscape.
Every time you go off the beaten path, you're locking yourself into less documentation, more bugs (since there's less exploration of the dark corners), and fewer people you can go to for help. If you've got 20+ choices to make, picking the standard option is the right choice on average, so you can just do it and move on. You have finite attention, so doing a research report on every dependency means you're never actually working on the core problem.
The exceptions to this are when a) it becomes apparent that the standard tool doesn't actually fit your use case, or b) the standard tool significantly overlaps the core problem you're trying to solve.
I of course fully support reinstating logicism, but the same dogmatics love putting up a fight over that as well.
I'm going to take a formal logic class in the fall, and my professor said something akin to "definitely take it if you're interested, just be aware that it probably won't come in use in most of the mathematics done today." The thing is the foundations are mostly laid, and people are interested in using said foundations for interesting things, not for constantly revisiting the foundations.
I think this is one reason most mathematicians don't see a need for formal proof assistants, since from their perspective it's one very small part of math, and not the interesting one.
This is not to say that proof assistants are a dead end—I find them fascinating and hope they continue to grow—but there's a reason that they haven't had a ton of traction.
Putting that aside, to make things more clear: computer science is mathematics. Computer scientists are mathematicians. That was a categorization decided long before you and I ever lived. In the sense that you mean, you're only referring to a very small fraction of what "mathematics" refers to In the true sense of the word. It is just as irreconcilably disjointed as Logic is, not unified and fundamentally non-unifiable.
I too think it would be better if "mathematics" was reserved for the gated suburb of ZFC. But that's not the world we live in, courtesy of the same people who pushed ZFC as a foundation to begin with.
No. There are truths about the subject not captured in any single formal system. Which is why objects are studied form many perspectives.
> Computer scientists are mathematicians.
Some are and some aren’t.
also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon... i.e. there's no reason it should be as you say.
For mathematicians a proof is a means to an end, or a medium of expression - they care about what they say and why.
The correspondence isn’t about C programs corresponding to proofs in math papers. It’s a very a specific claim about kinds of formal systems which don’t resemble how math or programming is done.
Not always.
If it is NOT true, they sometimes simply play "what if" and construct a new system where it could be true.
What you've done here is an overgeneralization. "People who like math" and "people who like computers" are massive demographics with considerable overlap.
Maybe. But more clearly one of the most popular online.