I feel sorry for whoever has to read and understand the solution. It looks like the typical convoluted unreadable mess I see the models generate for software. It might be technically correct, but gaining insight from it is just intellectual hell.
replyThere's an opportunity to build a Lean "optimizer" which automatically simplifies existing proofs.
replyYeah, code golfing for lean would be amazing, especially if they can make the proof to Fourier's Last Theorem fit in the margin.
replyExtra credits if it is proven that the proof cannot be reduced any further.
Skill issue. Also lean is meant to be executed, not read.
replyA proof is not like a program. The goal of a program is to "do the thing", thus you can make the argument that it doesn't matter what the code looks like as long as its works right. But the goal of a proof isn't to "do the thing" (where "the thing" is just to print Yes or No), it's to communicate. An unintelligible proof is really just a first draft.
reply>A proof is not like a program.
replyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
its important to read it anyway because there have been and will continue to be errors in the construction of the proof software itself. which leads ai and humans alike to prove things that arent true
replyi think they're talking about the writeup
reply