undefined | Better HN

0 pointsakoboldfrying4mo ago0 comments

Thanks.

> If you find that you're depending on a junk value in a way that's incompatible with what you wanted to prove

This is the part I'm struggling with. How would you actually know/realise that you were doing this? It seems like "the mathlib way" you describe is choosing to rely on programmer discipline for something that could be enforced automatically.

My fear is that relying on the junk values of functions (values where their "proper" partial counterparts are not defined) is somehow unsound (could lead to proving something untrue). But perhaps my intuition is off here? If so, I think the specific junk values chosen must not matter at all -- e.g., having sqrt return 42 for negative x values should work just as well, am I right?

0 comments

markusde4mo ago

You can't prove something untrue (in the sense that it implies false) without proving that the theorem prover is is unsound, which I think at the moment is not known to be possible in Lean.

But you're exactly right. There's nothing linking theorem prover definitions to pen and paper definitions in any formal system.

yccs274mo ago

It is enforced automatically for most purposes: If you're writing a proof involving e.g. the sqrt function, you want to use theorems about it, e.g. that (sqrt(x))^2 = x. Almost all of those theorems have x>=0 as a precondition, so you do need to prove it when it matters.