Mathematical proof is a social compact
&gt; But is this foolproof? Is a proof a proof just because Lean agrees it’s one? In some ways, it’s as good as the people who convert the proof into inputs for Lean.<p>Having studied CS in school I&#x27;m sort of triggered by this. Might be the editorialization, but this is a statement I have a problem with.<p>I am not one of those who think that computers will save us all. My point of view is that computers are meaningless machines that do meaningless operations on meaningless symbols unless proven otherwise. This is what gets drilled in your head in any semi-decent CS program and it&#x27;s a point of view I came to agree with completely.<p>But we have proven otherwise.<p>Proof checkers like Lean, Coq, Matita, Isabelle and the like are not like normal code, they are more similar to type-systems and code expressed in their formalisms is directly connected to a valid mathematical proof (see the Curry-Howard isomorphism).<p>They are usually constructed as a tiny, hand-proven core, and then built on their own formalism, ensuring that what is exposed to the end user is perfectly grounded.<p>If a program is accepted by the proof checker, then <i>by construction</i> it must be a valid mathematical proof.<p>Of course, computers are physical machines that can potentially make all sorts of mistakes. Hardware failures, cosmic rays, whatever.
But the probability of that happening on a large scale is the same probability that seven billion people collectively hallucinated elementary theory and it&#x27;s in fact not true that there are infinitely many prime numbers.<p>edit: Just a clarification: it&#x27;s only this particular statement I have a problem with. The article is very much worth your time. Do not get derailed by the title, it&#x27;s not some sort of &quot;math is racist&quot; nonsense.