Skip to main content
Became Hot Network Question
Inlined Youtube link, and linked to particular time
Source Link
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

In his talk, The Future of Mathematics,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp-mQ3HxgDEThe Future of Mathematics

 , Dr. Kevin Buzzard states that Lean is the only existing proof assistant suitable for formalizing all of math. In the Q&A part of the talk (at 1:00:001:00:00) he justifies this as follows:

  • Automation is very difficult with set theory
  • Simple type theory is too simple
  • Univalent type theory hasn't been successful in proof assistants

My question is about the first of these: Why is automation very difficult with set theory (compared to dependent type theory)?

In his talk, The Future of Mathematics,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp-mQ3HxgDE

 Dr. Kevin Buzzard states that Lean is the only existing proof assistant suitable for formalizing all of math. In the Q&A part of the talk (at 1:00:00) he justifies this as follows:

  • Automation is very difficult with set theory
  • Simple type theory is too simple
  • Univalent type theory hasn't been successful in proof assistants

My question is about the first of these: Why is automation very difficult with set theory (compared to dependent type theory)?

In his talk, The Future of Mathematics, Dr. Kevin Buzzard states that Lean is the only existing proof assistant suitable for formalizing all of math. In the Q&A part of the talk (at 1:00:00) he justifies this as follows:

  • Automation is very difficult with set theory
  • Simple type theory is too simple
  • Univalent type theory hasn't been successful in proof assistants

My question is about the first of these: Why is automation very difficult with set theory (compared to dependent type theory)?

added 57 characters in body
Source Link
MWB
  • 1.7k
  • 2
  • 11
  • 20

In his talk, The Future of Mathematics,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp-mQ3HxgDE

Dr. Kevin BuzzardDr. Kevin Buzzard states that Lean is the only existing proof assistant suitable for formalizing all of math. In the Q&A part of the talk (at 1:00:00) he justifies this as follows:

  • Automation is very difficult with set theory
  • Simple type theory is too simple
  • Univalent type theory hasn't been successful in proof assistants

My question is about the first of these: Why is automation very difficult with set theory (compared to dependent type theory)?

In his talk, The Future of Mathematics,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp-mQ3HxgDE

Dr. Kevin Buzzard states that Lean is the only existing proof assistant suitable for formalizing all of math. In the Q&A part of the talk (at 1:00:00) he justifies this as follows:

  • Automation is very difficult with set theory
  • Simple type theory is too simple
  • Univalent type theory hasn't been successful in proof assistants

My question is about the first of these: Why is automation very difficult with set theory (compared to dependent type theory)?

In his talk, The Future of Mathematics,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp-mQ3HxgDE

Dr. Kevin Buzzard states that Lean is the only existing proof assistant suitable for formalizing all of math. In the Q&A part of the talk (at 1:00:00) he justifies this as follows:

  • Automation is very difficult with set theory
  • Simple type theory is too simple
  • Univalent type theory hasn't been successful in proof assistants

My question is about the first of these: Why is automation very difficult with set theory (compared to dependent type theory)?

What makes dependent type theory more suitable than set theory for proof assitantsassistants?

Source Link
MWB
  • 1.7k
  • 2
  • 11
  • 20
Loading