Berkeley researcher: Lean certificates aren't proofs yet, just stronger numerical evidence
rbhar90 · x · 2026-09-14
Berkeley researcher rbhar90 offers a cautious take on Lean formal proofs: while he loves Lean and believes it will improve mathematics, large Lean certificates are not foolproof.
- They may contain errors, misdefinitions, or exploit kernel bugs
- So they should not (yet) be treated as definitive proofs
- He suggests viewing them as "a stronger form of numerical evidence" — worth something, but no replacement for a human-comprehensible proof you can explain at a whiteboard
The argument is a useful counterpoint to the current wave of AI-driven autoformalization efforts.
More from Research
- RL luminary Szepesvári: researchers actually want AI models that generate insight — CsabaSzepesvari · 2026-09-14
- Ted Nelson's 1965 Thoughts on Hypertext Resurface — dreamwieber · 2026-09-14
- Meme nails AI research's oldest gripe: papers without reproducible code — CSProfKGD · 2026-09-14
- Csaba Szepesvari: Math's Love of Infinity May Be a Fiction — CsabaSzepesvari · 2026-09-14
- TCS researcher reflects on problem-solving vs theory-building in the AI era — jasondeanlee · 2026-09-14
- Study: dropping 0.003% of LMArena votes can flip the top model — rishabh16_ · 2026-09-14