mathlib
coq
Our great sponsors
mathlib | coq | |
---|---|---|
36 | 87 | |
1,619 | 4,578 | |
0.2% | 1.6% | |
9.3 | 10.0 | |
4 days ago | 2 days ago | |
Lean | OCaml | |
Apache License 2.0 | GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only |
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.
mathlib
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
Lean – Theorem Prover
I think they end up similar. Although Lean 3 is much more geared towards writing proofs with the addition of mathlib [0] which aims to be a library of formalized mathematics.
- The Mathematical Hacker
-
Thoughts on proof assistants?
Check out Lean (https://leanprover-community.github.io/) if you want a theorem prover with a strong mathematics community. Or if you don't, Lean is cool.
-
Mathics: A free, open-source alternative to Mathematica
Check out https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib . Sure, it's not really a CAS but CAS algorithms could be added to it where applicable, since Lean is a constructive system and can thus express formally verified computations.
-
Principia Mathematica in modern notation.
If you're really interested in formalization of mathematics, there's a lot to do otherwise. I think there's lots of work to do on Mathlib that you don't need a PhD to do, just programming experience and bachelors-level math knowledge.
coq
-
Change of Name: Coq –> The Rocq Prover
The page summarizing the considered new names and their pros/cons is interesting: https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names
Naming is hard...
-
The First Stable Release of a Rust-Rewrite Sudo Implementation
Are those more important than, say:
- Proven with Coq, a formal proof management system: https://coq.inria.fr/
See in the real world: https://aws.amazon.com/security/provable-security/
And check out Computer-Aided Verification (CAV).
-
In Which I Claim Rich Hickey Is Wrong
Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs; they're more useful to guide an implementation in a more practical functional language but then the proof is separated from the implementation, and you could also use tools like TLA+.
-
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.
-
Functional Programming in Coq
What ever happened to the effort [1] to rename Coq in order to make it less offensive? There were a number of excellent proposals [2] that seemed to die on the vine.
[1] https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names
[2] https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names#c%E1%B5%A3...
-
Mark Petruska has requested 250000 Algos for the development of a Coq-avm library for AVM version 8
Information about the Coq proof assistant: https://coq.inria.fr/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
-
Basic SAT model of x86 instructions using Z3, autogenerated from Intel docs
This type of thing can help you formally verify code.
So, if your proof is correct, and your description of the (language/CPU) is correct, you can prove the code does what you think it does.
Formal proof systems are still growing up, though, and they are still pretty hard to use. See Coq for an introduction: https://coq.inria.fr/
-
What are the current hot topics in type theory and static analysis?
Most of the proof assistants out there: Lean, Coq, Dafny, Isabelle, F*, Idris 2, and Agda. And the main concepts are dependent types, Homotopy Type Theory AKA HoTT, and Category Theory. Warning: HoTT and Category Theory are really dense, you're going to really need to research them.
- The seven programming ur-languages
- Rosenpass – formally verified post-quantum WireGuard
What are some alternatives?
coc.nvim - Nodejs extension host for vim & neovim, load extensions like VSCode and host language servers.
kok.nvim - Fast as FUCK nvim completion. SQLite, concurrent scheduler, hundreds of hours of optimization.
FStar - A Proof-oriented Programming Language
Agda - Agda is a dependently typed programming language / interactive theorem prover.
lean4 - Lean 4 programming language and theorem prover
coq.vim - Pathogen-compatible distribution of Vicent Aravantinos' vim scripts for Coq.
tlaplus - TLC is a model checker for specifications written in TLA+. The TLA+Toolbox is an IDE for TLA+.
coq-serapi - Coq Protocol Playground with Se(xp)rialization of Internal Structures.
CoqGym - A Learning Environment for Theorem Proving with the Coq proof assistant
CompCert - The CompCert formally-verified C compiler
Coq-Equations - A function definition package for Coq
learn-you-a-haskell - “Learn You a Haskell for Great Good!” by Miran Lipovača