kmill

If someone says they'll pay $8.50 but then they round up and give you $9, you wouldn't say they didn't give you the $8.50 due, right? It's in the $9.

I think implicitly with the inheritance is the assumption that the father is promising at least 1/2, 1/3, and 1/9 of the flock to the respective sons, not the exact fraction. There's a solution where each son gets what's promised, and then a little more.

I'd be surprised if the compiler didn't make that optimisation on its own.

Would you mind sharing your representation? :-)

1. Algebra: Let's say we have a linear operator T on a real vector space V. When trying to analyze a linear operator, a key technique is to determine the T-invariant subspaces (these are subspaces W such that TW is a subset of W). The smallest non-trivial T-invariant subspaces are always 1- or 2-dimensional(!). The first case corresponds to eigenvectors, and T acts by scaling by a real number. In the second case, there's always a basis where T acts by scaling and rotation. The set of all such 2D scaling/rotation transformations are closed under addition, multiplication, and the nonzero ones are invertible. This is the complex numbers! (Correspondence: use C with 1 and i as the basis vectors, then T:C->C is determined by the value of T(1).)

2. Topology: The fact the complex numbers are 2D is essential to their fundamentality. One way I think about it is that, from the perspective of the real numbers, multiplication by -1 is a reflection through 0. But, from an "outside" perspective, you can rotate the real line by 180 degrees, through some ambient space. Having a 2D ambient space is sufficient. (And rotating through an ambient space feels more physically "real" than reflecting through 0.) Adding or multiplying by nonzero complex numbers can always be performed as a continuous transformation inside the complex numbers. And, given a number system that's 2D, you get a key topological invariant of closed paths that avoid the origin: winding number. This gives a 2D version of the Intermediate Value Theorem: If you have a continuous path between two closed loops with different winding numbers, then one of the intermediate closed loops must pass through 0. A consequence to this is the fundamental theorem of algebra, since for a degree-n polynomial f, when r is large enough then f(r*e^(i*t)) traces out for 0<=t<=2*pi a loop with winding number n, and when r=0 either f(0)=0 or f(r*e^(i*t)) traces out a loop with winding number 0, so if n>0 there's some intermediate r for which there's some t such that f(r*e^(i*t))=0.

So, I think the point is that 2D rotations and going around things are natural concepts, and very physical. Going around things lets you ensnare them. A side effect is that (complex) polynomials have (complex) roots.

That second operator is the <|> operator, from the Alternative typeclass.

The first one has some arbitrariness (do you take the left or right value if both are Just). But, thankfully the Applicative typeclass gives both <* and *>, which lets you choose which value you want:

  Just A <* Just B = Just A
  Just A *> Just B = Just B

(There's the possibility to merge values too, with f <$> Just A <*> Just B, which evaluates to Just (f A B). I feel like this is a "don't try to understand it, just get used to it" sort of syntax. It can be pretty convenient though.)

An analogy might be how if you mix together water and alcohol, you get a solution with less volume than the sum of the volumes. That doesn't mean that there's "negative" volume, just that the volume turns out to be sub-additive due to an interaction of specific characteristics of the liquids. Somehow, some connect sums of particular knots enable possibilities that let it more easily be unknotted.

I spent the better part of the summer during grad school trying to prove additivity of unknotting numbers. (I'll mention that it's sort of a relief to know that the reason I failed to prove it wasn't because I wasn't trying hard enough, but that it was impossible!)

One approach I looked into was to come up with some different analogues of unknotting number, ones that were conceptually related but which might or might not be additive, to at least serve as some partial progress. The general idea is represent an unknotting using a certain kind of surface, which can be more restrictive than a general unknotting, and then maybe that version of unknotting can be proved to be additive. Maybe there's some classification of individual unknotting moves where when you have multiple of them in the same knotting surface, they can cancel out in certain ways (e.g. in the classification of surfaces, you can always transform two projective planes into a torus connect summand, in the presence of a third projective plane).

Connect summing mirror images of knots does have some interesting structure that other connect sums don't have — these are known as ribbon knots. It's possible that this structure is a good way to derive that the unknotting number is 5. I'm not sure that would explain any of the other examples they produced however — this is more speculation on how might someone have discovered this counterexample without a large-scale computer search.

I see people on Zulip using Copilot to write Lean proofs, and they have some success, but the quality is really bad right now, creating long, unmaintainable proofs. New users get stuck, thinking they're 90% of the way to the end, but really the whole thing probably should be scrapped and they should start over.

It's a bit frustrating because, before Copilot, new users would come with proofs and you could spend some time helping them write better proofs and they'd learn things and gain skills, but now it's not clear that this is time well spent on my part. Copilot is not going to learn from my feedback.

My understanding is that the proof doesn't exist in written form in its entirety.

Plus, Kevin Buzzard is a world expert with some ideas for how to better organize the proof. In general, formalization leads to new understanding about mathematics.

Something people outside of mathematics don't tend to appreciate is that mathematicians are usually thinking deeply about what we already know, and that work reveals new structures and connections that clarify existing knowledge. The new understanding reveals new gaps in understanding, which are filled in, and the process continues. It's not just about collecting verifiably true things.

Even if somehow the OpenAI algorithm could apply here, we'd get less value out of this whole formalization exercise than to have researchers methodically go through our best understanding of our best proof of FLT again.

> I haven't worked with Lean so I don't know how much this crops up in practice

It really doesn't. I've been using Lean and Mathlib for about five years now, and Fermat's Last Theorem is definitely not going to depend on the reduction properties of quotient types in the large scale.

Mathematical reasoning in Lean is almost universally done with rewriting, not reduction. People have found reduction based proofs (colloquially "heavy rfls") to be difficult to maintain. It exposes internal details of definitions. It's better to use the "public API" for mathematical definitions to be sure things can be refactored.

Really, quotients almost should never use the actual `Quot` type unless you have no better choice. In mathematics we like working with objects via universal properties ("public API"). A quotient type is any type that satisfies the universal property of a quotient. All `Quot` does is guarantee that quotients exist with reasonable computation properties, if we ever need them, and if we need those computation properties — which in the kind of math that goes into FLT we often don't. We don't even need `Quot` for Lean to have quotient types, since the classic construction of a set of equivalence classes works. (Though to prove that this construction is correct surely uses functional extensionality, which is proved using `Quot` in some way, but that's an implementation detail of `funext`.)

We're working on a new rewrite tactic this summer at the Lean FRO (I don't know if I ever directly mentioned that to you yet on Zulip).

One interface I'm planning on is `rw [(pos := 1,3,2) thm]` to be able to navigate to the place where the rewrite should occur, with a widget interface to add these position strings by clicking on them in the Infoview. The whole occurrences interface will also be revamped, and maybe someone from the community could help make a widget interface for that too.

Of course there's already `conv => enter [1,3,2]; rw thm`, but putting it directly into `rw` is more convenient while also being more powerful (`conv` has intrinsic limitations for which positions it can access).

The interface is what people will notice, but technical idea of the project is to separate the "what" you want to rewrite from "how" to get dependent type theory to accept it, and then make the "how" backend really good at getting rewrites to go through. No more "motive not type correct", but either success or an error message that gives precise explanations of what went wrong with the rewrite.

And, yeah, it's great that Lean lets you write your own tactics, since it lets people write domain-specific languages just for solving the sorts of things they run into themselves. There's no real difference between writing tactics as a user or as part of the Lean system itself. Anyone could make a new rewrite tactic as a user package.

That's Lean 3, from eight years ago, and it's from before 'sorry' really existed in the way we know it now.

---

To answer the GP's question: Not only is there a verification mode, but Lean generates object files with the fully elaborated definitions and theorems. These can be rechecked by the kernel, or by external verifiers. There's no need to trust the Lean system itself, except to make sure that the theorem statements actually correspond to what we think they're supposed to be.

At least you can 'go to definition' on the tactics and see what they're doing. It's a lot to take in at the beginning, but it can all be inspected and understood. (At least until you get to the fundamental type theory; the reduction rules are a lot harder to get into.)

> the rewrite (rw) tactic syntax doesn't feel natural either.

Do you have any thoughts on what a natural rewrite syntax would be?