Ah good; thanks.
]]>added (here) a remark on the meaning of “formal” in “formal proof”
(prodded by discussion in another thread)
]]>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 pointer to:
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 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 has formal proof
Your definition of formal proof only works in a specific context, so I generalised it and then noted its implications for that context.
]]>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.
]]>I felt that we needed an entry titled proof. I added something, but maybe somebody else feels like turning it into a genuine entry.
]]>