No one is claiming it is proven in lean or in natural language. The Clay Institute, for example, has not said it’s proven.
The paper does point out that we don't know if Astra stated the problem correctly in Lean. There are a number of posts here that consider the correctness of the Lean code with high confidence. This paper I think weakens…
That could be that these examples are lemmas, but in the introduction the authors conclude, "In all cases the correctness of the formal proof does not say anything about the correctness of the NL proof."
They are claiming that we do not know if they formalized Navier-Stokes correctly.
Yes it could be that neither the NL proof nor the Lean proof correspond to the actual Navier Stokes problem. Here's a quote from the paper-- "Remark 3.4 (Further potential mistranslations of the Navier-Stokes proof).…
Here's from the paper-- "3.1. When the NL paper declares stronger statements than what Lean proves We commence with an example that complements those in §2. In the following example the AI autoformalisation results in a…
You may be overconfident here. The NL paper may be properly stating the Navier Stokes problem, and the Lean code may not be. Here's from the paper-- 3.1. When the NL paper declares stronger statements than what Lean…
The statement written in Lean, is not actually a correct description of the Navier-Stokes problem. It's some other easier statement. That's why the Lean code may not be a proof. Here's a quote from the paper. "In the…
My understanding is that the statements in the Lean proof might not actually correspond to the Navier-Stokes problem. And that requires mathematical insight to be able to verify, which could take quite a while.
fascinating story. amazing how people want to believe in the AI savior.
Mojo runs faster on nvidia hardware than CUDA in some cases. https://x.com/clattner_llvm/status/1982196673771139466?s=61
It’s nice to hear someone using English correctly.
yeah i think that's an important point that this article should have mentioned: rather than a company trying to embarrass the government for asking, it's the government trying to embarrass a company for not complying!…
Nexus 6
Deckard, I need your magic, I need my old Blade Runner.
No one is claiming it is proven in lean or in natural language. The Clay Institute, for example, has not said it’s proven.
The paper does point out that we don't know if Astra stated the problem correctly in Lean. There are a number of posts here that consider the correctness of the Lean code with high confidence. This paper I think weakens…
That could be that these examples are lemmas, but in the introduction the authors conclude, "In all cases the correctness of the formal proof does not say anything about the correctness of the NL proof."
They are claiming that we do not know if they formalized Navier-Stokes correctly.
Yes it could be that neither the NL proof nor the Lean proof correspond to the actual Navier Stokes problem. Here's a quote from the paper-- "Remark 3.4 (Further potential mistranslations of the Navier-Stokes proof).…
Here's from the paper-- "3.1. When the NL paper declares stronger statements than what Lean proves We commence with an example that complements those in §2. In the following example the AI autoformalisation results in a…
You may be overconfident here. The NL paper may be properly stating the Navier Stokes problem, and the Lean code may not be. Here's from the paper-- 3.1. When the NL paper declares stronger statements than what Lean…
The statement written in Lean, is not actually a correct description of the Navier-Stokes problem. It's some other easier statement. That's why the Lean code may not be a proof. Here's a quote from the paper. "In the…
My understanding is that the statements in the Lean proof might not actually correspond to the Navier-Stokes problem. And that requires mathematical insight to be able to verify, which could take quite a while.
fascinating story. amazing how people want to believe in the AI savior.
Mojo runs faster on nvidia hardware than CUDA in some cases. https://x.com/clattner_llvm/status/1982196673771139466?s=61
It’s nice to hear someone using English correctly.
yeah i think that's an important point that this article should have mentioned: rather than a company trying to embarrass the government for asking, it's the government trying to embarrass a company for not complying!…
Nexus 6
Deckard, I need your magic, I need my old Blade Runner.