An amusing anecdote about proofs can be found in "My Brain Is Open" by Bruce Schechter; the subtitle is 'The Mathematical Journeys of Paul Erdos'.
At the bottom of p.20 Erdos asks Andrew Vazsonyi how many proofs of the Pythagorean theorem did he know. Vazsonyi's answer was that he only knew one. Erdos claimed to know 37. A proven theorem is an invariant object. Long lived and stable are different notions more applicable to computer programs and systems as you rightly point out. Cheers, Gene On 6/1/2019 7:00 AM, Tim Daly wrote:
I have an active discussion on Zulip / Lean (the general/syntax thread) The issue is "long term stability". Axiom code from the last century still compiles and gives the same answers. Latex code from the last century still compiles and gives the same document. I need to be able to write Definitions, Lemmas, and a Proof that will machine check correctly at the "30 year horizon". It does me no good to use Lean to prove Axiom's GCD algorithm if the proof fails next week. Lisp had this problem and it was essentially solved with a standards effort to create common lisp. It does me no good to have a proof system where the tactics can change, the syntax can change, and the kernel is unstable. I can't do long-term, "30 year horizon" computational mathematics on that basis. I think someone should raise the "common core proof standard effort" so that all of the systems could import / export "raw" proofs (at a minimum). Or at least a common core for systems using equivalent logic rules. It is reasonable to assume that a "proof" is a long-lived object and that computational mathematical results are "stable". Competing on "features" is for game programmers, not mathematicians. Tim _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
_______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
