Something that always bugged me about Lean is how unreadable and unwritable. Math uses extremely heavy notation to make statements concise. It's hard to learn the notation without a visual reference guide, sync the symbols don't have guessable names, but once you know what the symbols mean, it's readable. Java is incredibly verbose but you can make out what it's saying word by word Lean is line noise. It's like assem…
Litex: Formal math for everyone – set theory examples with Lean comparison
11–12 of 12 posts
Re: Litex: Formal math for everyone – set theory examples with Lean comparison
#12One thing I never understood about this: why does this not just compile to Lean so they're compatible with each other? Having a good interface is admirable, but the difference between set and type based foundations seems not very important and porting any enough math to sustain Litex seems like a huge undertaking.
It's truely great if Litex does compile to existing formal languages. The only problem is that we can not find a good way to compile our verification process, which does not require users to give names to facts they are using and thus very different from how Lean works, to Lean (set theory example is just the first one of a series of comparisons). Besides, it's even harder to compile future functionaliteies, like pri…