Sagemath is not a proof assistant but computational math software. Any 
result that sage returns as an answer that provably differs from the 
intended result can be read as a statement that claims equality between two 
provably non-equal objects and hence a provable falsehood, all of which are 
equivalent to the statement "0=1". Note that "intended" and "can be read" 
leave room for subjectivity: there is probably context required and the 
assumptions on that may differ between the author and the user. In that 
sense "misunderstandings" between a computer algebra system and a user are 
quite possible and happen often.

The more interesting/serious contradictions are generally the ones that 
persist even after user and system (author?) have established that they 
actually do agree on the intended meaning and assumptions. With a 
multi-author system like sagemath, it's quite likely that internal 
mismatches in assumptions are lurking to produce real bugs.

There's of course a whole bug list for sage with plenty of examples. The 
symbolic integration system (really just maxima, or giac or sympy or 
others) is riddled with problems, usually caused by implicit branch cut 
assumptions. They usually eventually get fixed, but in those cases it 
usually depends on upstream. And new ones seem to be found at approximately 
the same rate.

Floats, used as imperfect approximation of reall numnber arithmetic, is 
inherently inaccurate, so ignoring that mismatch allows easily for 0 == 1 
(within epsilon, for sufficiently large epsilon).

Arriving at a (perceived) contradiction in a computational system is of a 
different nature than in a proof assistant: some parts of sage are in fact 
documented to produce heuristic (unproven!) results.

That said, bug reports are always welcome. Limited resources for fixing 
them may cause them to be open for a long time, though.

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 03:13:36 UTC-8 Georgi Guninski wrote:
Without doubts, sage and its library have bugs. 

Are the bugs "powerful enough" to prove contradiction of the form 0=1? 

As a self promotion, around 2008 I proved contradiction in Coq. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" 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/sage-devel/e7c97496-ade5-43b6-ab54-82b09df5b1d0n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to