Hello everyone, my name is Jon, I have a PhD in mathematics (partial 
differential equations) and some experience as a programmer for a self 
driving car firm. OpenCog seems awesome, my health is not so good so it's 
often hard to find nice ways to contribute but maybe there is something and 
I hope some encouragement is worth something :)

I have been part of the metamath <http://us.metamath.org/>community for a 
while and wanted to ask, are there any links between the OpenCog community 
and the metamath community? Do you already know a lot about formal 
mathematics and are including it in your system or are you taking a 
different approach?

For anyone who has never heard of it here are a few reasons I am excited 
about the approach metamath is taking.

Firstly the metamath database is growing. It has it's own syntax to encode 
mathematical statements and the main database 
<http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/mmtheorems.html> contains about 30k proven 
theorems based on ZFC set theory and is about at an advanced undergraduate 
level at the moment. It is in somewhat of a graph bases structure, where 
each proof is a list of steps, each of which were themselves proven 
previously. This may mean it has some compatibility with the atom based 
hypergraph approach, though I can't claim to really understand that.

Secondly a core idea of mm development is that the software which operates 
on the database is totally separate from the database itself (in contrast 
to Lean and other formal systems). So there are a bunch of verifies, which 
can check the validity of the encoded proofs, and people are writing new 
ones all the time. This makes it easy to hook into the database which is 
just stored as an ascii text file. There is some comparison of formal 
systems here 
<https://jiggerwit.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-architecture-of-proof-assistants/>,
 
which maybe is not so kind to metamath ha ha.

Thirdly there has been some nice progress recently in AI proof generation. 
OpenAI has been running a project <https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03393> and 
have created a pretty good narrow AI which is better than me at proving 
theorems, which is maybe not such a big compliment ha ha. This has a nice 
virtuous circle to it where a larger database makes it easier to prove new 
theorems which makes the AI more powerful.

There is a tipping point coming I think where the boundary of the mm 
database (or another formal system) catches up with where cutting edge 
mathematical research is. I think at that point many professional 
mathematicians will switch to working formally (it has a huge number of 
nice advantages, it's basically digitising the field and apply AI to it all 
at once) and that will be a "big bang" of sorts.

Fourthly Mario Carneiro has been doing some really cool work on formally 
verifying computer programs. So he has a formal system which sits on top of 
the x86 architecture and can prove, if the hardware executes the algorithms 
correctly, that certain functions will have certain properties. He was kind 
enough to explain a bit of it to me here 
<https://groups.google.com/g/metamath/c/MbFrc9WEIGY/m/JGnhRp6DAgAJ> after a 
nice talk he did.

Fifthly I am then quite excited in the abstract about where this system is 
headed. For example an AI which can formally reason about code it is 
writing and can prove mathematical statements could be very powerful. I 
think there is some nice approach to the control problem here, something 
like "new code can only be run if it is proven to obey the same constraints 
that currently running code is bound by." This maybe creates a way of 
limiting what an AI can do no matter how clever it becomes.

This is a much more speculative idea but I think it is interesting to 
imagine a statistical layer feeding in to a formal layer. So for example 
say a linear regression is applied to some collected data and finds some 
formula for a relationship it would then be possible to use the metamath 
framework to reason about this formula, maybe integrate it for example, and 
from that generate a hypothesis which could then be tested in the world. 

Anyway that's probably enough from me I think. If anyone has questions or 
would like to talk about any of this stuff I would enjoy that. Otherwise I 
hope everyone has a great day!

Jon

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"opencog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/371730ce-2f1f-4ab6-9559-26cef4d847e8n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to