7 ms·
"It's formalized in Lean, isn't it?" If that's the current burden of proof required in your world for maths then that's fine! 't'ain't in my world: I want to
by gerdesj 4d ago
"It's formalized in Lean, isn't it?"
If that's the current burden of proof required in your world for maths then that's fine! 't'ain't in my world: I want to see peer reviewed and published. Surely that's not too much to ask. Its not perfect but generally works rather well for maths.
I'm not a sodding programmer so please don't assume everyone here is one. I'm not a mathematician either but I do have standards: Your counter argument is a poorly constructed and inappropriately deployed example of "proof by whataboutism".
- HotHotLava 4d agoIn what world is peer review a higher standard than formal verification in Lean? Not in the world mathematicians have been living in for the past decades at least. Nearly all big theorems that have been formalized so far had been published beforehand, and it was usually regarded as a step up in rigor. Wrong results get published in peer reviewed journals all the time.
- aarstid 4d agoI find it really strange the way “peer-reviewed” is used by the general public as some gold standard of truth. As a former academic who has been there, the process is extremely arbitrary and variable. Are people aware that the “peer” refers not to a community or a committee, but literally to one random guy or maybe a couple with zero accreditation? And that the journal editor can do whatever they want with this peer’s “review” including completely ignoring it?
- rcbdev 4d agoI keep thinking the exact same thing every time I'm asked to peer review a paper.