There's nothing subtle about the mistake in the paper at hand. The reason everybody expects proving P != NP to be difficult is that it's very hard to say anything at all about arbitrary programs. The authors just assume…
Interesting bug: when pressing the text-to-speech button to hear my Swedish story read out loud, what I get is a pretty good rendition of the text read as if it were French.
I'm confused by "postulating an axiom doesn't count". Are you aware that choice is an axiom in Lean? https://github.com/leanprover-community/lean/blob/master/lib...
LEM for mere propositions is not "true by default", but it is consistent with univalence. So you can take it as an axiom.
There's nothing subtle about the mistake in the paper at hand. The reason everybody expects proving P != NP to be difficult is that it's very hard to say anything at all about arbitrary programs. The authors just assume…
Interesting bug: when pressing the text-to-speech button to hear my Swedish story read out loud, what I get is a pretty good rendition of the text read as if it were French.
I'm confused by "postulating an axiom doesn't count". Are you aware that choice is an axiom in Lean? https://github.com/leanprover-community/lean/blob/master/lib...
LEM for mere propositions is not "true by default", but it is consistent with univalence. So you can take it as an axiom.