mastodon.world is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Generic Mastodon server for anyone to use.

Server stats:

9.2K
active users

#proofs

2 posts2 participants0 posts today
Replied in thread

@loopspace @tao For me, the most natural approach would be in the context of formal logic. Start with the set of all proofs for a given statement (in a specified formal system, with some axioms given, for example) and then introduce some transformations that transform a proof into an equivalent one. Changing the order of the proof steps is a possible transformation, and the morst trivial one. Then these transformations define an equivalence relation, and voilà!, you have a concept for proof equivalence.

The challenges here are of course (1) to find a definition that is meaningful in the real life of mathematicians, and (2) to prove interesting things with these concepts. One would try to define invariants, for example.

I have done nothing concrete in this direction and do not know whether anyone else has, but maybe there is something.

A while a go I started working on a modal semantics for defining errors in distributed computing via types. The results have now appeared in a chapter for a volume dedicated to one my PhD mentors and teacher Göran Sundholm. The actual formalism is a bit far away from the tons of things I learned from him, but it touches on the issues of correctness and errors in proofs part of his philosophical research.

#proofs #computing #errors #correctness

link.springer.com/chapter/10.1

@philosophy

SpringerLinkHandling Mobility Failures by Modal TypesCorrectness is a major concern for logical systems, especially for its significance in computational settings. While establishing a norm for the correctness of computational procedures is a standard requirement, defining errors is a less investigated formal problem....

here's a fun question that I have my own answer to, but would like to know what others think: what is, in your mind, the most (or one of the most) accessible mathematical proofs? as in, you could take this and show it to someone with barely any maths education, or even a child, and they'd be able to understand it and see why proofs can be fun and useful without all of the baggage of our existing, terrible maths education system