principia
mathlib
Our great sponsors
principia | mathlib | |
---|---|---|
10 | 36 | |
198 | 1,619 | |
- | 0.1% | |
2.7 | 9.3 | |
9 months ago | 25 days ago | |
TeX | Lean | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 only | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
principia
-
Principia Mathematica in modern notation.
You can check it out here: https://www.principiarewrite.com/
-
It took Russell and that other guy 360 pages to prove that 1+1=2. That's how rigorous math is.
It's crazy to think that we didn't really know for sure whether 1+1=2 until ~1910, yet it's true. That's when Bernard Russell (best known for Russell's teapot, exposing a logical fallacy in Christianity) and some other dude actually proved it from axioms. They laid out the foundation of 1+1 in a book called Principia Mathematica. They worked so rigorously that it took them 360 pages to even prove something as basic as 1+1=2 using the axiomatic method. If you want to use a modern tool like Coq to verify 1+1=2, then the best way of doing this is to formalize Principia Mathematica in Coq.
-
Which is the most abstract and bizzare book of mathematics you have ever came across?
There are people trying to make it more readable.
-
Ask HN: Would prog. language look like if that was designed by no-programmer
Principia
A work from the early 20th century, mathematics, logic.
I think some expert called Bertrand Russell's and A.N. Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" initiative a "bizarre" piece of work, when seen from the perspective of a programming language designer.
I can't make a qualified statement about this, as I am neither a mathematician nor a language designer. And I cannot find the exact quote on the internet, sorry. Just saying.
In code? See for yourself :
-
Hacker News top posts: Dec 6, 2021
Whitehead and Russell’s Principia rewritten in Coq\ (44 comments)
- Whitehead and Russell’s Principia rewritten in Coq
- The Principia Rewrite: Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Rewritten in Coq
mathlib
- An Easy-Sounding Problem Yields Numbers Too Big for Our Universe
-
Towards a new SymPy: part 2 – Polynomials
It's been on my mind lately as well. I was trying out `symbolics.jl` (a CAS written in Julia), and it turned out that it didn't support symbolic integration beyond simple linear functions or polynomials (at least back then, things have changed now it seems). Implementing a generic algorithm for finding integrals is hard, but I was expecting more from that CAS since this seems to be implemented in most other CASs. The thing is that every single CAS that covers general maths knowledge will have to implement the same algorithm, while it's hard to do it even once!
I feel like at least a large part of the functionality of a general purpose CAS can be written down once, and every CAS out there could benefit from it, similar to what the Language Server Protocol did for programming tools. They also had to rewrite the same tool for some language multiple times because there are lots of editors out there, and the LSP cut the time investment down a lot. They did have to invest a large amount of time to get LSP up and running, and it'll have to be maintained, but I think it's orders of magnitudes more efficient than having every tool developed and maintained for every single (programming language, editor) pair out there.
Main problem is like you said how to write down mathematical knowledge in a way that all CASs can understand it. I've been learning about Mathlib lately [0], which seems like a great starting point for this. It is as far as I know one of the first machine readable libraries of mathematical knowledge; it has a large community which has been pushing it continuously forward for years into research-level mathematics and covering the entire undergraduate maths curriculum and it's still accelerating. If some kind of protocol can be designed to read from libraries like this and turn it into CAS code, that would be a major step towards making the CAS ecosystem more sustainable I think.
It's not exactly what you were talking about, as in, this would allow multiple CASs to co-exist and benefit from each other, but I think that's better than having one massive CAS that has a monopoly. No software is perfect, but having a diverse set of choices that are open source would be more than enough to satisfy everyone.
(I have posted about this before on the Lean Zulip forum, it's open to everyone to read without an account [1])
-
Lean 4.0.0, first official lean4 release
Kinda agree but Mathlib and its documentation makes for a big corpus to learn by example from. Not ideal but it helps.
-
It's not mathematics that you need to contribute to (2010)
https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib
You can watch the next generation, or participate, right now.
-
If given a list of properties/definitions and relationship between them, could a machine come up with (mostly senseless, but) true implications?
Still, there are many useful tools based on these ideas, used by programmers and mathematicians alike. What you describe sounds rather like Datalog (e.g. Soufflé Datalog), where you supply some rules and an initial fact, and the system repeatedly expands out the set of facts until nothing new can be derived. (This has to be finite, if you want to get anywhere.) In Prolog (e.g. SWI Prolog) you also supply a set of rules and facts, but instead of a fact as your starting point, you give a query containing some unknown variables, and the system tries to find an assignment of the variables that proves the query. And finally there is a rich array of theorem provers and proof assistants such as Agda, Coq, Lean, and Twelf, which can all be used to help check your reasoning or explore new ideas.
-
Will Computers Redefine the Roots of Math?
For the math that you mention, I would suggest looking at mathlib (https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib). I agree that the foundations of Coq are somewhat distanced from the foundations most mathematicians are trained in. Lean/mathlib might be a bit more familiar, not sure. That said, I don't see any obstacles to developing classical real analysis or linear algebra in Coq, once you've gotten used to writing proofs in it.
- Did studying proof based math topics e.g. analysis make you a better programmer?
-
Which proof assistant is the best to formalize real analysis/probability/statistics?
At this point I would go with Lean because of mathlib. Mathlib's goal is to formalize modern mathematics, so many of the theorems you would need for analysis should already be there for you.
-
[R] Large Language Models trained on code reason better, even on benchmarks that have nothing to do with code
I think about that every day. Lean's mathlib is a gigantic (with respect to this kind of project) code base and each function, each definition has a precise and rigorous natural language counterpart (in a maths book, somewhere).
-
Is there a paid service where someone can explain a paper to me like I am 15?
It's been around since 2013, although there are LLM that interact with Lean to do automated theorem proving. Anyway, you can learn more about Lean here. I enjoyed their natural numbers game (which reminds, me I should finish the last two levels)