Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I felt that we needed an entry titled proof. I added something, but maybe somebody else feels like turning it into a genuine entry.
I used to be very unhappy with the entry proof. Now I read Robert Harper’s little exposition Extensionality, Intensionality, and Brouwer’s Dictum and now I am happy. I moved some of this into the entry.
Your definition of formal proof only works in a specific context, so I generalised it and then noted its implications for that context.
Okay, thanks.
I remember I was wondering about this point re Gödel’s theorem when reading in Martin-Löf’s lecture notes the piece where he emphasizes in great length that
true $\Leftrightarrow$ has a proof
which is of course the whole point of all of constructivism/ type theory. Still, put this way a Gödel-alarm bell tends to go off.
So it’s good to know how to switch that alarm off:
true $\Leftarrow$ has formal proof
added pointer to:
found this an interesting read, worth recording here:
Can’t really judge the main conclusion, but if nothing else this presents some interesting statistics on existing formal proofs.
added (here) a remark on the meaning of “formal” in “formal proof”
(prodded by discussion in another thread)
Ah good; thanks.
1 to 8 of 8