[HN Gopher] New math book rescues landmark topology proof ___________________________________________________________________ New math book rescues landmark topology proof Author : theafh Score : 246 points Date : 2021-09-09 16:00 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org) | leephillips wrote: | If I understand this article, it's about a 500-page book that is | devoted to one proof of one theorem in topology. I find that | amazing. | | And cheers to _Quantum Magazine_ for regularly publishing | popularizations of research mathematics. I know many, at times, | take issue with their simplifications and framing, but they're | trying, where almost no one else with their reach covers these | areas at all. | liversage wrote: | It's amazing how math can require so much work for what appears | to be a single result, but I spend an entire semester proving a | single mathematical theorem and to do that I had to work | through an entire textbook, so I don't think it's that unusual. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | I am not a mathematician, though I do very applied math (ML), | I took a course this semester that is intended for Pure Math | MSc, called Advanced Vector spaces, having only done some | linear algebra and calculus at the undergraduate level, some | abstract algebra and some geometric algebra. | | I am consistently in awe of how well mathematicians have | stacked layers of abstraction one on top of the other, and | how many different ideas end up being very related to one | another. Maybe I am romanticised it and the fact that I | regret not going for pure math, but there is beauty in all | those abstractions that fit together so nicely. | kevinventullo wrote: | As a former mathematician, I would say the stacked layers | get a lot messier closer to the cutting edge. | taeric wrote: | I realize I have little chance of actually being able to | understand all of it. Still, I'd gladly have bought it at a | lower cost. :( | mindcrime wrote: | I wonder how many other results in maths require an entire book | length treatment (or multiple book length treatments)? The one | that jumps out to my mind is Godel's Incompleteness | Theorem(s)[1]. I know there are at least a couple of complete | books dealing exclusively with this result. | | [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_... | srcreigh wrote: | I suspect someone could write a book (or an HN comment at | least) about the popular confusion about Godel's 1st | incompleteness theorem. :-) | | In fact we (my brother and I) agreed that it bears a striking | resemblance to Turing's halting problem: They both seem to | show what computers or math can't do, but in fact both | theorems only reveal limitations of certain models of | computers and/or math. We both have undergrad degrees in math | fwiw. | | Both theorems use a clever logical trick. For Godel's | theorem, it is an encoding of "This sentence is false". For | the halting problem proof, Turing first fixes the algorithm, | asks the algorithm what its result will be, then switches the | correct answer, forcing the algorithm to produce the | incorrect answer. | | Would the proof completely fall apart if the algorithm could | update itself to handle the new information? The only thing | stopping it is that in the formulation of the problem, the | algorithm is assumed to not be able to change with new | information (ie it's not an "online" algorithm). Similarly, | what if the model of math had mechanisms for recognizing | paradoxes, or circular logical requirements, etc. I don't | think either of those theorems would work anymore. | | Anyway, I'm not saying the Halting problem would be easy to | compute with the right model. If we had an efficient | algorithm to solve the halting problem, we could solve tons | of math problems easily. We could write some code to | enumerate any countably infinite sequence, checking for the | presence of some condition, and make inferences based on if | it halts or not. For example, we could solve the Collatz | conjecture by just writing code to halt if any number's | sequence doesn't eventually go to one, and checking whether | that loop ever halts. | | My punchline is, I think it's beautiful that even the | undecidable, uncomputable problems are only that way because | we are lacking a better model. Or at least that's my current | understanding of the situation :-) | geofft wrote: | Suppose the algorithm could update itself with new | information. Then you can formulate it in one of two ways: | | 1. The process of updating the algorithm can, itself, be | described by a Turing machine. Think of it like an emulator | / debugger (since a universal Turing machine exists, i.e., | you can write an evaluator for a Turing machine as a Turing | machine). The outer Turing machine can run the inner one | partially, realize it needs changes, update it, and then | continue running it and return its output. | | But then the outer Turing machine, which is self-contained, | is itself subject to the halting problem, and you can | construct the counterexample based on it. You've just made | the machine bigger. | | 2. The process of updating the algorithm cannot be | described by a Turing machine. Perhaps it involves some | sort of higher form of intelligence which itself cannot be | represented as a Turing machine (so, if you want to say "a | human updates it," you're working on the assumption that | the human brain cannot be implemented/emulated - however | slowly - on a Turing machine, and the decisions of how to | update the algorithm require this supra-Turing | computational power). | | But then, as before, the actual machine is this combination | of the extra intelligence and the Turing machine. You've | made some stronger non-Turing machine to solve the problem, | and the statement "No Turing machine can determine whether | any arbitrary Turing machine halts" still holds true. | You've introduced a new class of machines with additional | power over Turing machines. And the halting problem now | applies to these machines when evaluating whether a machine | _of their own class_ halts, even though they can determine | whether simpler machines halt. Your human-Turing mechas can | solve the halting problem for Turing machines, but they | cannot solve it for other human-Turing mechas. See | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_jump | | In fact, this model, applied to Godel's theorem, was | explored in Turing's own Ph.D. thesis: https://en.wikipedia | .org/wiki/Systems_of_Logic_Based_on_Ordi... | srcreigh wrote: | Thanks for response! I will definitely read about Turing | jumps :) | | I'm not sure I understand your 1. Reading the Halting | problem undecidability proof, it goes like this: | | Suppose machine H can solve the halting problem. We | construct special machine M which calls H(M), and negates | the output. Then when we run H(M), it halts if M doesn't | halt, and doesn't halt if M halts, hence M doesn't exist. | | On the other hand, if H could self-modify, we would have | a sequence H_0,H_1,... of machines based on its | modifications. Ie, M is written with H_i, but later we're | calling H_j(M). No guarantee that our negation still | works. | geofft wrote: | How do you generate the sequence H_0, H_1, ...? | | Specifically, is there a Turing machine G that can | generate H_0, H_1, ..., onwards, perhaps taking in some | input along the way? | | If so, then you can construct a self-contained Turing | machine Z that takes a machine M as input, which works as | follows: it calls G to generate H_0, runs H_0 for a bit | on M, then calls G to generate H_1, runs H_1 for a bit on | M, and so forth. This is a _single_ Turing machine which | does not need external modification. Internally, it works | by having an inner Turing machine that it modifies. But Z | itself doesn 't change. | | Then you can define M = "if Z(M): loop", call Z(M), and | get your contradiction back. | | If no, then you've built a more-powerful-than-a-Turing- | machine machine of some sort. | thethirdone wrote: | > Would the proof completely fall apart if the algorithm | could update itself to handle the new information? The only | thing stopping it is that in the formulation of the | problem, the algorithm is assumed to not be able to change | with new information (ie it's not an "online" algorithm). | | Simple put the halting problem means that you cannot make a | program (a static piece of code) that can determine in a | finite amount of time if another program halts operating on | some input. I.E. program P takes program H and input I and | answers if H run with I halts. I honestly don't know what | part of the computational model could be changed to make | that not true (besides Oracles or Church-Turing thesis | being wrong). | | Also, I don't think "online algorithm" means what you think | it means. Online algorithms have no more computational | power than offline ones; they just can get started with | only partial information. | | > Similarly, what if the model of math had mechanisms for | recognizing paradoxes, or circular logical requirements, | etc. I don't think either of those theorems would work | anymore. | | I don't know what a model of recognizing paradoxes would | look like. The 1st incompleteness theorem is based on only | a few simple axioms and reasonable rules of deduction. | There isn't much wiggle room to make a mathematical model | that isn't bound by it, but is useful. | srcreigh wrote: | > The halting problem means that you cannot make a | program (a static piece of code) that can determine in a | finite amount of time if another program halts operating | on some input. | | Interesting. My first thought was, couldn't we just | create programs that are designed to keep growing? Isn't | that both completely possible and more powerful than the | model of computing where programs are static? | | I realized it may not be entirely possible to build an | actual machine which hosts endlessly growing code. There | are probably laws of physics which put some type of limit | on how big things we build can get. | EamonnMR wrote: | I like to think of the halting problem as similar to the | inability to predict the future. In order to predict the | future you'd need a model of the whole universe, including | the model. Once you think of it like that you realize that | you can't beat halting in the classical universe. | jcranmer wrote: | Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and the undecidability of | the halting problem can in fact be proved using each other, | so there is good reason to think that there is a deeper | connection. | | What you suggest isn't actually possible, and to explain | why, it's worth stepping back a little bit. Originally, | there was a program to formalize mathematics that came to | be known as naive set theory. This theory ran into a major | roadblock when Russell proposed a paradox: does the set of | all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself? The | solution to this, as found in modern set theory, is to very | carefully construct sets in such a way that no set can | contain itself in the first place, and so the very question | isn't expressible in the logic of modern set theory. | | The underlying point of both Godel and Turing is, as you | say, constructing a similar statement akin to "this | statement is false." But more specifically, what they | actually did was to show that, once you meet some | relatively low barriers, it is _impossible_ to make a | system that omits that construct. In effect, what is done | is to encode (respectively) proofs and programs into | integers, and then using this encoding, shows that you can | always create a self-reference that blows up. Yes, if you | change the encoding, it requires a potentially different | number to create the self-reference, but the point is that | so long as there is a bijection to the natural numbers, | then the problematic self-reference must exist. | | And, as you may be able to reflect upon, everything we as | humans can write or speak _can_ be reduced to a finite- | length string of a finite-symbol alphabet, so everything we | create must be bijectable with the natural numbers if | infinite. | kevinventullo wrote: | I would say that most hallmark results in theory-heavy | mathematics (number theory, algebraic geometry, topology, | ...) could stretch to at least a book length treatment if you | wanted a mostly self-contained proof. | | It sounds like the main difference with this theorem is that | the writeup of the original proof was so complicated, terse, | and error-prone, that very few experts even understood it. | karatinversion wrote: | I don't think the incompleteness theorems are nearly as wordy | - this translation of Godel's original paper is under 40 | pages after subtracting the introduction (not part of the | original). | jcranmer wrote: | The classification of finite simple groups [1] is apparently | ~11-12 books long (when it's finished). Yes, several books | for a single theorem. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_finite_si | mpl... | Denvercoder9 wrote: | I don't wanna know how much books the classification of | finite complex groups is gonna take. | lou1306 wrote: | Godel's theorem is actually not _that_ complex. Sure, you may | think of "Godel, Escher, Bach", but that book is stuffed | with sooo much material that is only tangentially related to | the theorem. | | Of course the _consequences_ of that theorem are legion, and | they do warrant many books worth of discussion. But the proof | itself can fit in a long-ish blog post, I think. | | Fermat's last theorem, on the other hand... | pdpi wrote: | GEB is a book about intelligence/consciousness. The | incompleteness theorem is incidental -- it's only there to | illustrate the notion of self-referentiality, and I'm not | sure it does a particularly good job at it. | CamperBob2 wrote: | The most recent case similar to this one is Mochizuki's work | on the ABC conjecture, which has still not reached the point | where it's accepted by the majority of the community due to | its complexity. There are lots of parallels between Mochizuki | and Freedman. They both had to break a lot of new ground, and | they both had trouble communicating their results to enough | people to become part of the official canon of mathematics | that can actually be taught to others. | | Freedman at least convinced a few key people, but AFAIK | Mochizuki's work has never been understood by anyone not | named Mochizuki. It may be complete BS, it may be | earthshakingly brilliant, but either way it will evidently | take someone's entire career to prove it. | iainmerrick wrote: | I believe the latest news on Mochizuki's work is that Peter | Scholze and Jakob Stix identified a fatal flaw, and | Mochizuki has not convincingly rebutted it. See e.g. the | first item here: | https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12429 | | Both the claimed proof and the disproof have now been | published in journals, and neither has been retracted! | That's a rather unusual situation to say the least. But I | think people in the field generally agree that the proof is | flawed and unfixable. | [deleted] | ntlang wrote: | Experts have been skeptical for quite some time. You can | see discussion on the exact point Scholze (PS) brings up | in the following blog post (the post and many comments | are by prominent number theorists) | | https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2017/12/17/the-abc- | con... | | One quote from the post I find worth repeating: | | > This post is not about making epistemological claims | about the truth or otherwise of Mochizuki's arguments. To | take an extreme example, if Mochizuki had carved his | argument on slate in Linear A and then dropped it into | the Mariana Trench, then there would be little doubt that | asking about the veracity of the argument would be beside | the point. The reality, however, is that this description | is not so far from the truth. | dls2016 wrote: | My buddy had "beat a Fields medalist at a foot race" on his CV | for a while after completing the Pier to Peak half marathon | faster than (a ~60 year old) Prof Freedman. | | I'd run to Goleta beach playground with my kids and would see | Freedman wander down from Station Q and bust out a few chin ups | on the monkey bars. | | I hope I'm in that kind of shape! | korbonits wrote: | What about this guy's book? | | https://math.uchicago.edu/~dannyc/books/4dpoincare/4dpoincar... | kurthr wrote: | "I probably didn't treat the exposition of the written material | as carefully as I should have," said Freedman. | | That's a pretty sad (if self aware) statement for someone who | gets paid $1M/yr to find arrangements which might make quantum | decoherence effects lower for computation ... or not. The editors | certainly won't make that much, but at least there's an afterward | by Freedman. | hxksleo wrote: | I'd be interested in whether proofs like these will be formalized | in proof assistants that can be checked with computer code, so | that it removes doubt of error. It's something in math I'd like | to see become more prevalent. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > I'd be interested in whether proofs like these will be | formalized in proof assistants that can be checked with | computer code, so that it removes doubt of error. | | This does not remove doubt of error. | openasocket wrote: | It's possible, but difficult. Proofs written by humans tend to | not include a bunch of relevant details and assumptions. They | consist of lines like "We have some property/object/logical | statement X, then by theorem Y we have Z", but often don't | state how exactly they are using theorem Y to get result Z. | There's often some additional algebraic or logical | manipulation, or some simplification of terms, or implicitly | using some other theorem or lemma that seems obvious to the | writer. | | Getting a computer to automatically find proofs of statements | is difficult (impossible in general), and I wouldn't be | surprised if converting a standard human-written proof into a | formal proof system is just as hard. | zozbot234 wrote: | It can be done, this is exactly what homotopy type theory is | for. | mahogany wrote: | Something at this level is still far away, but it should be | possible in theory. Last time I checked, there was still a lot | of work to be done with formalizing geometric objects in Lean | (the only proof assistant I have experience with). We are more | in the stage of formalizing proofs from undergraduate books, | whereas the proof of the 4-dimensional Poincare conjecture is | multiple orders of magnitude more difficult. | | From my understanding and limited experience, formalizing | complex objects is quite difficult. A long proof where the | objects are integers or algebraic relations might be easier | than even _defining_ a manifold. For example, with Lean, it was | a lot of work to even define a perfectoid space -- which, to be | fair, is a complicated object -- much less, say anything | interesting about it. | | If someone has more experience with other proof assistants, I'd | be interested to hear about how far away a proof like | Freedman's would be. My understanding is that each one (coq, | agda, lean, etc) has certain drawbacks or benefits and can | describe some concepts more easily than others, but "high- | level" proofs are few and far between for all. For example, Coq | has a verification of Feit-Thompson Theorem which is really | cool, but I don't think there are many complex objects in | there. As far as I know, it's groups, linear algebra, generator | and relation computations -- all of which are pretty well | handled by computers. On the other hand, to even begin a | verification of Fermat's Last Theorem, you would have to first | build up the entire scaffolding of modern (well, second half of | the 20th century at least) algebraic number theory, quite a | feat in itself. | roywiggins wrote: | The problem is, once you have a proof that everyone agrees is | correct, what's the incentive to painstakingly translate it | into something a computer also agrees is correct? | | Yes, you might turn up some "bugs" in the proof, but proof bugs | can almost always be ironed out. It's a very rare proof that is | accepted and then falls apart later. If proofs were as "buggy" | as computer programs- falling apart all the time- then there'd | be a much bigger appetite for proof checkers. But as it is, | mathematical peer review seems to work awfully well. | mahogany wrote: | I agree that it's rare that a proof is accepted and falls | apart later, but it does happen occasionally. | | Somewhat famously, Voevodsky turned his attention to | mathematical foundations, including proof assistants, at | least in part because he was spooked that a part in one of | his big papers was later shown to be incorrect. | (Interestingly, someone much less known pointed this out in a | preprint but it was, from my memory, largely ignored for some | time -- who's going to believe a nobody versus a Fields | Medalist?) There's a talk that Voevodsky gives at (I think) | IAS, where he mentions this. | | --- | | Edit: okay, here are the slides: https://www.math.ias.edu/~vl | adimir/Site3/Univalent_Foundatio... | | The whole talk is interesting, but slides 8-13 talk about the | topic at hand. In particular: | | > This story got me scared. Starting from 1993 multiple | groups of mathematicians studied the "Cohomological Theory" | paper at seminars and used it in their work and none of them | noticed the mistake. | | > And it clearly was not an accident. A technical argument by | a trusted author, which is hard to check and looks similar to | arguments known to be correct, is hardly ever checked in | detail. | | ... | | > It soon became clear that the only real long-term solution | to the problems that I encountered is to start using | computers in the verification of mathematical reasoning. | zozbot234 wrote: | There's plenty of incentive to do that actually, since a | translation of a proof that had not been formalized before | yields a much clearer proof than anything a human could write | on her own. This is doubly true when some "bugs" are found | and "ironed out" in the process - even seemingly trivial bugs | can trip up the reader and obscure interesting sr structure. | In fact, a truly novel formalization is pretty much | publishable work in and of itself. The problem is not | incentives; it's more of a lack of willingness to work in an | area that's very fragmented still and makes it way too hard | to reuse existing results. | spekcular wrote: | This has been a long time coming. There is an infamous | MathOverflow thread about the proof (also linked in the article), | with the following comment summarizing the state of affairs ~10 | years ago: | | > There is no other evidence. In fact there is absolutely no | evidence what so ever. I have never met a mathematician who could | convince me that he or she understood Freedman`s proof. I | attempted to read that monstrosity of a paper a number of times | by myself and quite a few times with a group of other | mathematicians. We never were able to finish checking all of the | details. Such seminars always ended before we could make it | through even half of his paper. No other expositions on the | subject seem to be any better. It is truely an odd state of | affairs that after all of these years no one has managed to write | a clear exposition of this so called proof, and that no one seems | to question the claim that there ever was a proof. I remember | thinking as a young mathematician either this "proof" is sheer | nonsense or someone will eventually write out a clear and | detailed explanation. As of April of 2011 I have understood that | the so called proof is full of errors and they can not be fixed. | I mentioned this to several mathematicians during the summer of | 2011 and I believe these conversations are directly linked to the | dialogue seen here on math overflow. | | Also on that thread, Brendan Guilfoyle raised the issue of | writing a complete book-length treatment of the proof. I found | the following response an interesting commentary on incentives in | academia. | | > Promotion committee: "What have you done in the last 5 years?" | | > B.G.: "I've been writing a book about a paper published in | 1982." | | > Promotion committee: "How is that groundbreaking overachieving | hyped research?" | | > B.G.: "It is not, but I am preserving the knowledge of the | elders." | | > Promotion committee: "Who told you that was a good idea?" | | > B.G.: "A guy on the internet, and 24 people liked his | suggestion." | | > Promotion committee: "We will call you, don't call us. Good | bye." | Koshkin wrote: | > _what so ever_ | | I've always thought it was connected. | auntienomen wrote: | That comment on incentives is funny, but I'm not sure it | captures the situation here: The mathematicians who wrote The | Disc Embedding Theorem have been quite successful. All are on | the tenure ladder (or tenured already) and publishing novel | research in a field they revitalized. | | I can see how sinking time into this is risky, but that's | generally true of choosing a field of research. I think the | authors deserve credit for doing it well. Likewise, Peter | Teichner should get a little credit for helping to create the | space for them to do so. | spekcular wrote: | I agree, actually. I think a book published by a major | academic press is a plus for any tenure/promotion committee. | Further, this is definitely not just "expository" work; as | the article notes, they had a bunch of gaps/errors to fix. I | expect the importance of those contributions would be | reflected in strong recommendation letters for promotion. | OGWhales wrote: | > (also linked in the article) | | Would never have seen that without your telling me. It was well | hidden until you moused over it | agf wrote: | Thread in question: | https://mathoverflow.net/questions/87674/independent-evidenc... | cschmidt wrote: | I do find it amazing that mathematicians seem to have almost | infinite time to work on problems, and so much freedom to choose | what they're working on. How great that a big group of people can | collectively decide to spend years creating a book like this. | Koshkin wrote: | What is amazing to me is that most people think they do not | have such freedom. | maxFlow wrote: | Makes you wonder what's the most impactful thing you could build | given the possibility of seven years of isolation and single- | minded focus. | | Would be interesting to know, at which point did Freedman decide | to commit full time to his research---based on what, an | intuition? And how did he decide to stop at 7 years and not 4, 9 | or 10? | | This is advanced stuff for me but I'll still be getting a copy of | _The Disc Embedding Theorem_ to support this kind of niche | research. Findings like these could be stepping stones towards | bigger discoveries in the future. | martincmartin wrote: | So who gets credit for proving it? Freedman, the original author | from 1981; or the authors of this book? | | If Freedman's proof has so many gaps, should it be considered | more of a proof outline, or a motivation for believing a | conjecture, and the current book be considered the actual proof? | | Or does Freedman get the glory? In that case, there's not much | incentive for people to do what these book authors did. Which I | suppose is why it took 30 years, and is only happening now | because they "were captivated by the beauty of Freedman's proof | and wanted to give it new life. " | auntienomen wrote: | It's not a strict exclusive-or choice. Credit will accrue to | both Freedman and the authors of this book, because both | advanced the state of the subject. And eventually perhaps | further credit to someone who publishes a machine-verifiable | proof, or finds a simpler way to understand the theorem. | rPlayer6554 wrote: | According to a sister comment, the paper contains a meta-proof | that shows that many of the gaps do not matter in showing the | equivalence.[0] I don't know if this is true or not, I'm just | connecting the discussions. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28473319 | pfortuny wrote: | Well, thank God lots of scientists (mathematicians in this | case) understand that transmission of knowledge is as important | (or more so) as novelty. And that is their incentive. | ChrisKnott wrote: | This distinction has been called an "open _exposition_ | problem ", versus an "open research problem". | | Once Freedman's proof was accepted, it was no longer an open | research problem; on the publication of this book, it will | (hopefully) no longer be an open exposition problem. | | The phrase was coined by Timothy Chow in his paper A | Beginner's Guide To Forcing [0]; | | > _" All mathematicians are familiar with the concept of an | open research problem. I propose the less familiar concept of | an open exposition problem. Solving an open exposition | problem means explaining a mathematical subject in a way that | renders it totally perspicuous. Every step should be | motivated and clear; ideally, students should feel that they | could have arrived at the results themselves."_ | | [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1320 | eigenket wrote: | Freedman gets the credit for the bits of the proof that are | his, the authors of this book get the credits for the novel | stuff they add. | phaedrus wrote: | The part I find most interesting is that (as I understand the | article), Freedman's proof relies on a meta-proof that details | not worked out in the base proof could be ignored: | | "But there were places where he couldn't quite complete the | picture -- as if he were creating a portrait and there were some | aspects of his subject's face he couldn't see. His last move, | then, was to prove that those gaps in his picture -- the places | he couldn't see -- didn't matter from the standpoint of the type | of equivalence he was after. That is, the gaps in the picture | could not possibly prevent the Casson handle from being | homeomorphic to the disc, no matter what they contained." | dodobirdlord wrote: | A common approach to proving a broad claim when there's no | straightforward proof is to figure out all of the entities that | have the potential to produce a counterexample, break them up | into a finite list of categories, and go through category by | category proving, often with very different approaches | depending on the category, that each category cannot contain a | counterexample. | | A major theorem proved in this style was the classification of | finite simple groups. Not only was it done in this style, it | frequently serves as a major component in other proofs of this | style, since theorems about other kinds of groups can sometimes | be re-expressed as claims about finite simple groups, and then | checked category by category. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_finite_sim... | | EDIT: This is also part of why sometimes the first proof of a | theorem will be very long, but someone will later use the | insight of the first proof to produce a much shorter proof. The | first proof will basically be a proof that the general claim | breaks down into a (possibly very long) list of separately | probable lemmas, followed by a proof of each of the lemmas. | These may not overlap very much, leading to proofs that are | very long and take a lot of background to understand. Once the | result is known to be true, it may be worth the effort for the | original author or someone else to refactor the "proved it | can't be disproved" proof into a much shorter direct proof. | danabo wrote: | The book in question is called "The Disc Embedding Theorem" | (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-disc-embedding-t...) | lostmsu wrote: | Math is the most formal science there is. Why don't serious math | journals require programmatically checked proofs for all | publications, and instead rely on what essentially is a code | review for a very large change request with extremely convoluted | code to be vetted bug free by only a handful of experts? | | P.S. Reviews are still needed to check novelty etc. | andyjohnson0 wrote: | (Meta but I don't think the parent comment deserved to be | downvoted. Maybe it's arguably wrong but it prompted replies | that increased my understanding of the practice of maths.) | lostmsu wrote: | Thanks for this remark. | | It is amusing to see this behavior, considering the comment | is a _question_ , to which responses seem to favor answer | "no". | | The only part of the comment, that is actually a statement | about peer review in mathematics being as bad or even worse | in terms of assessing correctness, than reviewing large code | changes. And nobody argues against that. | nerdponx wrote: | Is it possible to even check such a proof programmatically? Do | we have that kind of technology? Do you also have to review the | proof checking code to make sure you didn't make any errors in | transcription from the original paper? | lostmsu wrote: | > Do you also have to review the proof checking code to make | sure you didn't make any errors in transcription from the | original paper? | | The point of the checked proof is that your final theorem is | almost definitely correct (you did not make mistakes in your | deductions, unless the proof checker has a serious bug) if | you can convince computer it derives from your axioms. | | You can convince humans without your proof being correct | thought, because they might not spot an error. | broken_symlink wrote: | There is a language called lean which is popular among | mathematicians. Here is an article: | https://www.quantamagazine.org/building-the-mathematical- | lib... | | A more recent article as well: | https://www.quantamagazine.org/lean-computer-program- | confirm... | nerdponx wrote: | My question was specifically referring to these huge 500 | proofs that only a handful of people have even attempted to | understand. What is the upper limit of what our current | state-of-the-art proof assistants can handle? | klyrs wrote: | > ...what essentially is a code review for a very large change | request with extremely convoluted code to be vetted bug free by | only a handful of experts? | | I kinda feel like this question answers itself. On the other | hand, I can't imagine this quagmire lasting another century, | but the machine-assisted proof ecosystem hasn't reached | adolescence yet. | jhgb wrote: | > Math is the most formal science there is. | | That's assuming you ascribe to viewing math as science. | | > Why don't serious math journals require programmatically | checked proofs for all publications | | Presumably it has something to do with why formalized | mathematics is rare: it's hard. Even relatively simple concepts | become quite hard to deal with when fully formalized. I suspect | that mathematics on this level is simply not amenable to the | treatment that you envision (at least today). | jacobolus wrote: | > _Why don 't serious math journals require programmatically | checked proofs_ | | ... Because that would take 2+ orders of magnitude more work, | and nobody has the time/attention budget for it. | | This is sort of like asking: why did you single person write | this 10-page short story instead of making a Hollywood-style | feature film? | lostmsu wrote: | Would it though? Are proof checkers much more complicated | than LaTeX? | | If mathematicians are in certain ways similar to developers, | I'd expect them to hate fighting with the layout of their | papers, and love fighting with a proof checker for the | formulas. | [deleted] | jacobolus wrote: | Maybe half (?) of the basic undergraduate math curriculum | has been formally verified, after decades of effort by | large numbers of researchers. The proof under discussion | here is significantly more complicated than anything that | has ever been formally verified, as far as I understand. | Disclaimer: I don't know much about formal verification of | mathematics, only what I have read from time to time on the | internet. | klyrs wrote: | > Are proof checkers much more complicated than LaTeX? | | In terms of lines of code, no. In terms of the learning | curve, yes -- latex does a very good job of getting out of | the way and letting a mathematician just write in English, | where proof assistants require rigid structure that doesn't | remotely resemble how (most) mathematicians think. In terms | of runtime, oh my god, get out of town. | lostmsu wrote: | > In terms of runtime, oh my god, get out of town. | | I think you're mixing two different things here. Runtime | is large for proof assistants, e.g. programs that can | actually generate pieces of proof for you. Specifically | the generation part. Verification of a complete proof | were all the steps are provided like you would do in a | paper should not, AFAIU, take a long time. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | The problem is that the way people write proofs, you | don't go axiom by axiom. You might evaluate an integral | in one step, or make an argument that some sequence is | obviously asymptotically less than a function. Pretty | much every step in a human proof requires a computer | proof generation step to verify. | lostmsu wrote: | There might be a chicken and an egg problem. If knowledge | of theoretical mathematics would be designed like a | framework with good documentation what you mention would | be solved by simply referring to the corresponding part | of the framework. | | But to get that more people would need to be involved | into transcribing proofs into formal language. Ideally, | everyone. This is a higher standard, and somebody needs | to ask for it. | klyrs wrote: | Fair point. I'm coming from the perspective that | mathematicians don't like to fill in pesky details that | experts in their respective fields can figure out in an | hour or ten. | qsort wrote: | For the same reason Google does not formally prove the | correctness of their code. It's technically feasible but | impossibly complex to actually achieve. | | Fully formalizing a proof with a tool like Coq or Isabelle is | in and of itself a nontrivial problem. | lostmsu wrote: | There are multiple ways in which Google Mail while behaving | incorrectly still be usable. But a theorem is not only | useless if it is incorrect, it is dangerous. | turminal wrote: | Because programmatically checked proofs don't work the way you | think they do. | | And even programatically checked proofs are still programs. And | programs still need code review. | lostmsu wrote: | I understand that you might need a code review for the proof | to look nice, but the point of a checked proof is that you | don't need a separate code review for correctness. If it | checks (sans internal checker issues) - it is correct. | CamperBob2 wrote: | The slides that mahogany linked to [1] may give you some | insight into this question. They're pretty interesting. | | [1] | https://www.math.ias.edu/~vladimir/Site3/Univalent_Foundatio... | eigenket wrote: | Getting a proof, even in one that is amenable to computer | verification into a form where you can actually verify it is a | monumental task, like it can easily take multiple experts | multiple years. | | Adding to this problem the intersection of mathematicians who | understand computer aided verification and who understand a | particular piece of research mathematics is often empty, and | even if there are a handful of people who could do the | necessary work they're often busy doing more interesting stuff. | | Finally I don't think a big proof that has been accepted by the | community has ever been found to be false by programmatic | methods. I think its unlikely that this will happen for a long | time, for the simple reason that to feed a proof into a | computer requires someone to dissect the proof to its logical | bare bones in the first place, and the person doing the | dissection is likely to notice any errors before they get round | to feeding the problem into the computer. | ouid wrote: | > I don't think a big proof that has been accepted by the | community has ever been found to be false by programmatic | methods. | | Right, because that's not how it works. Errors aren't | discovered after the proof has been translated into machine | language because that is the only step of the verification. | As soon as the code is written, the proof is verified. | Necessarily, then, any error discovery has to happen before | that. | roywiggins wrote: | > Why don't serious math journals require programmatically | checked proofs for all publications | | Because mathematics has more or less worked fine for decades | without it, and most mathematicians aren't programmers and | aren't interested in it. Proofs are for understanding, not for | technical correctness (though obviously the latter is very | important). A good proof convinces someone that it's true; | convincing a _computer_ that it 's true is probably | tangentially useful, but not very interesting to most | mathematicians. They mostly want to be expanding the frontiers | of mathematical knowledge, not painstakingly encoding proofs | that they already believe (and, crucially, that their _peers | also already believe_ ) into a computer system. | | That's not to say proof checkers aren't interesting in their | own right, but there's lots of really quite good reasons why | mathematics goes without them almost all of the time. Formal | methods bring a lot to computing, where our programs fall apart | constantly, but mathematical proofs almost always _don 't_ fall | apart. And in computing, _almost all_ programs don 't have | formal proofs of correctness! If any area needs them, it's in | computing, not mathematics. You might as well ask why every | compiler doesn't come with a proof of correctness: because it's | already hard enough to build a compiler, let alone the | monstrosity that would be a formal proof. | | The added benefit to a computer-checked proof is usually small | to nil, and it's a _ton_ of work. Like, way more work than just | writing the proof. | webmaven wrote: | _> A good proof convinces someone that it 's true; convincing | a computer that it's true is probably tangentially useful, | but not very interesting to most mathematicians. They mostly | want to be expanding the frontiers of mathematical knowledge, | not painstakingly encoding proofs that they already believe | into a computer system._ | | I guess the question is which of "convincing a human" or | "convincing a computer" is considered the higher bar. | | In any case, uncovering "what you believe that isn't so" is | pretty important. | roywiggins wrote: | Right, but the ordinary methods of doing mathematics seem | to be so good that the vast effort required to encode | proofs well enough for a computer to check vastly dwarfs | the benefit, at least for now. | | There's obviously been a lot of work done on proof | assistants and maybe it will become easy and natural to | formulate most proofs in a way a computer can check, but | it's not anywhere close to that yet. The book explicating | the proof discussed in the article is already 500 pages | long, translating that into something a computer could | check just isn't at all feasible yet. | lostmsu wrote: | This sounds like a very dangerous attitude, considering that | making any tiny mistake will cause you to be able to prove | any statement. Of all people mathematicians should understand | that. | roywiggins wrote: | Empirically, proofs with bugs get ironed out into proofs | with less bugs, and the results almost always end up | standing. Why mathematical proof seems to be as good as it | is at avoiding proving false statements is a matter of | contention, but practically speaking it _works_. There 's | very little incentive to computer check proofs because, as | a practical matter, mathematics is not plagued with false | "theorems." | | Computing, on the other hand, is plagued with broken | programs, and formal methods are still a very specialized | area, even though the potential benefits are much greater | in computing than mathematics. | lostmsu wrote: | > mathematics is not plagued with false "theorems." | | But you don't know that. | | There certainly were precedents: | https://mathoverflow.net/questions/291158/proofs-shown- | to-be... | roywiggins wrote: | The answer given there by Manuel Eberl is more or less | what I was trying to get at (and he is far more | knowledgeable about it than I am). Lots of mathematicians | find that the existing level of rigor in the field is | enough. | | Obviously the people who like proof assistants disagree, | and they may be right. It could be that modern theorems | are just too complicated to be adequately evaluated by | unassisted humans. But mathematicians have been getting | along just fine without them for a long time, so "why | aren't we requiring computer-checked proofs of | everything" has a very straightforward answer: | mathematicians writ large aren't convinced of the benefit | yet. | Koshkin wrote: | More often than not mathematicians look for proofs of things | they (and others) are already convinced in being true (or | even already know for a fact). The automatic proof checking | is just for that - making sure the proof is correct. | HenryKissinger wrote: | > Math is the most formal science there is. | | Can you prove that? | robbedpeter wrote: | Formality is technically the degree of mathiness applied to a | domain, since formal logic and any other framework of | formalization decomposes to mathematics. | | So... it's a tautology. Math is the most mathy math. Biology | or psychology are less mathy maths. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_. | .. | | Having provablility holes in the formal system doesn't imply | the existence of other systems that could be decomposed from | currently known or unknown symbols. In this universe, | information at the level of string theory seems to describe | the limits, so math, as she is wrote, is as formal as it | gets. | | The map is not the territory, so math, as a map, will always | be less "formal" than reality itself. It's pretty firmly in | second place, though. | ttctciyf wrote: | But if you only have maps and no territory, can you still | be said to be doing cartography? :) | doublerabbit wrote: | I really wish I could get math to stick. I just finished my | National 5 maths (rough equivalent of a US High School Diploma) | night-class today and all I ever seem to understand is how, but | not why. I'm the one asking "why is that that." And today was | recapping on trinomial, simplifying fractions. Simple I expect to | anyone with a mathematical mind, but to me, it's just an insane | implosion which leaves me exhausted. I have notes, but even | still. | | What is the secret behind it? How do people get so good with | Maths? Is it truly study,study & study? .. I hadn't even herd of | the terminology of co-efficient until today. Let alone something | like this. | curtisf wrote: | High school math does not look much like research math. | | High school math is highly concerned with teaching 'algorithms' | that compute answers, like long multiplication, long division, | the quadratic formula, completing the square, synetic division, | u-sub integration, ... | | Most mathematicians don't work with calculating things. Rather, | they're more interested in _generally_ characterizing how | objects behave (and _proving_ that that characterization is | actually correct) | | For example, the definition of "continuous" you learn in pre- | calc is probably something like: if you compute a function's | limit, you get the same thing as computing the function. | | The topologist's definition is that the function's inverse map | preserves openness. | | These are basically unrecognizable as being the same thing, but | in fact they are. And the second doesn't actually reference | calculation or even anything identifiable as numbers! | | I believe this is a significant cause of not understanding | "why" despite understanding "how". As an example, I remember in | pre-calculus we spent at least an entire unit on partial- | fraction-decomposition. Partial fraction decomposition is a | strange algebraic manipulation that is basically only important | to integrating rational functions -- something you don't do | until at least a year later, and which doing by hand is | basically pointless because computers are better at it than | humans. | | They also require very different kinds of intuition. Building | intuition is hard, but important for people studying math. | Working through many different examples and problems and | applications can help you build intuition. | | But I don't really have any advice for how to make math stick | better, but just want to share that the mathematics you learn | in high school is not representative of the entire field. | | If you ever want to get a taste of "higher math" without having | lots of prereqs, point-set topology and group theory are two | (very different!) fields that are also fairly accessible. | Pyramus wrote: | Very good example re continuity! | | I fully agree that (high) school math is mostly calculus and | very different from university/research math. I would | recommend parent to start exploring what math actually is, | which fields there are and where they come from, what some | famous open problems are and what beauty means to | mathematicians. | | Good popular maths books are e.g. The Music of the Primes by | Marcus du Sautoy [1] or Fermat's Last Theorem by Simon Singh | [2]. | | It's also important to note that there are no shortcuts - it | takes at least 1-2 years of studying maths to start to | understand the why. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Music_of_the_Primes | | [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_Last_Theorem_(book) | gjm11 wrote: | Just for fun, an example of an application of partial | fraction decomposition that _doesn 't_ involve taking | integrals. | | Consider the Fibonacci numbers 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, ... (with | the convention that 0 and 1 are the 0th and 1st). Here's one | way to get an explicit formula for them. | | First, we package them up into what's called a "generating | function": 0 x^0 + 1 x^1 + 1 x^2 + 2 x^3 + 3 x^4 + 5 x^5 + | ... or, more concisely, the sum of F_n x^n over all | nonnegative integers n. Call this thing F(x). | | What happens if we add up F(x) and x F(x)? Well, x F(x) is | just the same sum but with all the numbers shifted over by 1. | It's the sum of x F_n x^n, or the sum of F_n x^(n+1), or the | sum of F_(n-1) x^n, with the proviso that there isn't an x^0 | term. So when we add this to the sum of F_n x^n, we get the | sum of [F_(n-1) + F_n] x^n, with again the proviso that the | x^0 term is just F_0 x^0 = 0. | | But, aha!, F_(n-1)+F_n is just F_(n+1), at least when n >= 1. | So this thing equals the sum of F_(n+1) x^n, _except_ that | once again we need to be careful about n=0; more precisely | what we have is the sum of F_(n+1) x^n, minus 1. (Because F_1 | is 1, but the actual x^0 term is 0.) | | And the sum of F_(n+1) x^n equals the sum of F_n x^(n-1), or | F(x)/x. | | In other words, we have F(x) + x F(x) = F(x)/x - 1, or | equivalently (1 - x - x^2) F(x) = x, or equivalently F(x) = x | / (1 - x - x^2). | | This is already pretty neat -- who would have thought that | that big sum, involving the Fibonacci numbers which are | defined in terms of a sort of recursive-adding process, would | come out to something so simple? | | Now comes the coup de grace, which is the bit that uses | partial fractions. We can write that denominator as (1-ax) | (1-bx) for some numbers a,b. We'll figure out what a,b | actually are in a moment -- that's just solving a quadratic | equation. For now, looking at the coefficients of x and x^2 | we note that a+b=1 and ab=-1. And now we can do the partial- | fractions thing. We know that we'll have x/(1-x-x^2) = | p/(1-ax)+q/(1-bx) for some p,q. That means that x = | p(1-bx)+q(1-ax), so p+q=0 and pb+aq=-1 or p=1/(a-b). That is, | F(x) = 1/(a-b) [1/(1-ax) - 1/(1-bx)]. | | Why bother doing this? Because the fractions we _now_ have | are easy to expand in powers of x. We have 1 /(1-ax) = 1 + ax | + a^2x^2 + ... and 1/(1-bx) = 1 + bx + b^2x^2 + ... So F_n, | the coefficient of x^n in F(x), is just 1/(a-b) [a^n - b^n]. | | Finally, we ought to work out what a,b actually are. It turns | out that a = [1+sqrt(5)]/2 and b = [1-sqrt(5)]/2; that is, a | is the famous "golden ratio" sometimes called phi, and b = | 1-a = -1/a. So a-b is just sqrt(5). | | So: the nth Fibonacci number is exactly (phi^n - (-1/phi)^n) | / sqrt(5). Isn't that nice? | | (Since |b|<1, the term b^n/sqrt(5) is always smaller than 1/2 | in absolute value, which means that F_n is also always the | _closest integer_ to phi^n /sqrt(5).) | | For the avoidance of doubt, none of this has anything at all | to do with the disc embedding theorem. I just thought it was | worth clarifying that partial fractions aren't _just_ a one- | trick pony used only for integrating rational functions; | there are other situations in which representing something in | terms of partial fractions gives useful insights into its | behaviour. | leephillips wrote: | Very nice. This is similar to Donald Knuth's treatment in | SS1.2.8 of v.I of _The Art of Computer Programming_ | (Fundamental Algorithms). | mathgenius wrote: | It's not just about memorizing stuff.. I think you need to find | a different teacher, if you really are keen to keep going. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-09 23:00 UTC)