I did my undergrad at Imperial. My first lecture was supposed to be with Prof. Liebeck. Kevin came in and wrote on the blackboard: "Lemma 1 - I am not professor Liebeck". He was wearing his (I think typical) trousers. I never interacted with him personally but I did look at his Wikipedia page once. He was the top student in his undergraduate class (Mathematics) at Cambridge. Very impressive to a mere mortal like me.I once played with Lean but found the tutorial not very approachable. It took an hour of reading through abstract explanations until it finally explained the idea how it works. Essentially, true statements are expressions that pass the "type check" of a compiler. A function taking type A as param and returning type B is an implication A->B. To prove this implication, you need to find a function implementation that passes the corresponding type checks. This is what I would have wanted the tutorial to say at the start.

 > Essentially, true statements are expressions that pass the "type check" of a compiler. A function taking type A as param and returning type B is an implication A->B. To prove this implication, you need to find a function implementation that passes the corresponding type checks. This is what I would have wanted the tutorial to say at the start.This sounds like the tutorial was geared toward those already familiar with other proof assistants, since this concept is present in most proof assistants.
 Which tutorial did you use? As someone coming from computer science, I found https://leanprover.github.io/theorem_proving_in_lean/ very approachable as an introduction to ITP in general.
 That's the one I meant I think. It is nice, but as I said the impression it left me with was "you could have told me how the approach generally works sooner".
 That books wants to build the foundation (dependent types) before making the big claim in chapter 3.It's a bit weird because has Haskell shows, you don't need dependent types for basic theorem proving. (but dependent types do give a lot of useful power)
 Well if you just have Haskell 2010 types, you're talking about really really basic theorem proving since all you have is propositional logic. The most interesting thing I can think of to prove with Haskell 2010 types is (the constructive version of) de Morgan's laws. Almost all other interesting mathematical statements are out of reach.

Search: