As a mathematics educator I remain extremely sceptical about assessment via timed exam, perhaps because I've always been suspicious of the idea of measuring mathematical ability by how *quick* you are. The reason they remain is that it's often hard to find an alternative.
I got a research grant to begin the proof of formalising Fermat's Last Theorem in Lean!
The research buys out my teaching and admin for 5 years, which I suspect will not be enough to get it done, but it will certainly be enough to make a big dent in it.
A team mostly based at DeepMind have created a system which can give accurate natural language solutions to many recent IMO geometry problems .
Note that (this kind of) geometry is decidable and e.g. IMO-level number theory is not. But still amazing!
The Gowers-Green-Manners-Tao proof of Marton's polynomial Freiman-Ruzsa conjecture has now been completely formalised by a team led by Tao. It took three weeks! The project was run on the Lean Zulip; here's Tao's announcement .
Wiles took 7 years to put together a sequence of ideas which proved Fermat's Last Theorem, not 3 hours. Speed was not the crucial factor -- it was insights, which come from a lot of chewing pencils.
Six months after Peter Scholze challenged the formal proof community to check one of his theorems, he reports on recent developments, and in particular on the efforts of Commelin et al using
#leanprover
Another thing which concerns me about exams is that they reinforce this macho "I can go faster than you" culture which I think can be unhelpful for women in a class. This is one of the reasons I examined my course by projects, which I think are a much more level playing field.
You know how these AI people say that they're going to get Lean to solve an IMO problem automatically? And we math people know this will never happen because IMO problems are hard.
Well according to this new
@OpenAI
blog post they solved not one but two.
Tao speaking at the 2024 Joint Math Meetings on machine-assisted proofs. An insightful discussion on various new ways that computers are helping humans to do mathematics.
I was taught the pigeonhole principle, as a 1st year undergraduate, by A.R.D. Mathias. He claimed that it was the assertion that if two pigeons were in one hole, then there was one hole which contained two pigeons. He then remarked that this observation could be generalized.
Ha ha, my PhD student David Ang was teaching Lean about division polynomials in the theory of elliptic curves, and it found a mistake in the literature . The canonical reference seems to be an exercise in Silverman's book, which turns out to be incorrect.
A new paper in
@Nature
details how machine learning was used to make significant new discoveries in pure mathematics by guiding the intuition of some of the world’s top mathematicians from
@Sydney_Uni
and
@OxUniMaths
:
Paper: 1/
Johan Commelin has just announced the completion of the formalisation of Peter Scholze's Liquid Tensor Experiment. He revealed the result at "Lean for the curious mathematician", a conference running this week at
@ICERM
. For details see his blog post .
I'm teaching a course on doing maths in theorem provers (using Lean). We're in week 2 and doing some basic analysis. I just made the video proving that the limit of the sum is the sum of the limits. Here it is!
The reason I'm sceptical is that I was always super-quick and noticed very early on that people associated this with being super-smart ("you did well on the IMO / the Cambridge exam system, so therefore you must be a great mathematician"). That's not actually how it works.
Here are my slides for my talk at the Grothendieck conference at Chapman . I seemed to end up concluding that Grothendieck's concept of equality was kind of difficult to pin down.
Wooah.
@RiccardoBrasca
and others have proved in Lean that the first case of Fermat's Last Theorem is true for regular primes! In other words, for p regular (a technical condition), there are no integer solutions to a^p+b^p=c^p with a,b,c coprime to p.
Waitwaitwait. How did Vice get from "I think there is a non-zero chance that some of our great castles are built on sand" (which I said) to "Number Theorist Fears All Published Math Is Wrong" ??
If anyone wants to watch a pictorial evolution of Tao et al's ongoing Lean formalisation of the Gowers-Green-Manners-Tao proof of the polynomial Freiman-Ruzsa conjecture -- now you can! It's here . The more the proof is formalised, the more it goes green.
The lean community used to do a monthly blog post explaining what math they'd taught Lean recently. Then there was big disruption as the entire code base had to be ported from Lean 3 to Lean 4. This is now long over, and the blog posts have restarted!
Yesterday I tweeted about my recent course which had no final exam, however it was of a rather unconventional nature -- teaching students how to formalise mathematics they already knew in a theorem prover -- so it gave me the chance to tear up the rule book.
OK so one of the co-founders of Ethereum just announced that they have founded an institute for formalising mathematics at CMU. There will be money for PhD students and post-docs, and we're talking about the kind of maths commonly found in maths departments. More to follow.
The cats out of the bag. Today I got to announce the Hoskinson Center for Formal Mathematics at
@CarnegieMellon
I donated 20 million dollars to create a permanent center to rewrite the language of math.
An AI using this GPT thing which folks go on about, has golfed two short proofs in mathlib, Lean's maths library :o
So we now have 134 human contributors (including several ICL undergraduates) and 1 computer.
Thanks to
@jessemhan
for letting me know!
Bit bewildered about whether I'm supposed to be tweeting about my own papers. Anyway, I wrote "What is the point of computers? A question for pure mathematicians" which is supposed to be the companion text to my talk at the forthcoming ICM.
DeepMind claiming their system gets a silver medal on 2024 IMO . Note that it took them three days to solve one of the questions, whereas the humans only had 4.5 hours. There was also human intervention translating the questions. But still way beyond SOTA.
Oh, weird coincidence! Two flagship Lean math projects finish within 24 hours of each other. This one (Kummer's 1850 proof of FLT for regular primes) took two years, partly because of the upgrade from Lean 3 to Lean 4 during that time. See for more.
A day later, and another major Mathlib project is complete:
Fermat's last theorem for "regular" prime exponents!
Main contributors: Alex J. Best, Chris Birkbeck, Riccardo Brasca, Xavier Roblot, Eric Rodriguez, Ruben Van de Velde, Andrew Yang
Lean FTW!
My post-doc Oliver Nash is working on the classification of semisimple Lie algebras. He's just written a roadmap so if you know some algebra and some Lean (or want to learn) then there are some very concrete targets building towards an important result.
Ok so I claim that doing mathematics constructively obscures ideas which, to me at least, feel natural. Let me illustrate with a simple example: a locally open set is open. (1/n)
I gave a talk at EPFL in Lausanne Switzerland:
Amongst other things, I explain the extraordinary state of the art when it comes to formalising modern combinatorics (tl;dr: it can now be done in real time).
Fermat's last theorem is an infamous puzzle that left mathematicians baffled for centuries. It was finally proven in 1993, but now there is a multi-year plan to do it all over again, using a computer.
Here's a demo of Lean 4 and GPT4 talking about how to prove theorems together. Together they prove 1.8 of them; a human intervened to give a hint in the second one. It's only a demo, so hopefully more to come :-)
New journal "Annals of Formalised Mathematics" (diamond open access). It publishes original articles about formalized mathematics and mathematical applications of proof assistants. My PhD students are going to be pleased...
Anyone interested in using language models to solve mathematical problems should check out the first AIMO progress prize. Unbelievably we already have someone scoring 23/50 on tricky high-school level questions whose answers are an integer between 0 and 999.
We welcome D. Sculley, Kevin Buzzard, Leo de Moura, Lester Mackey and Peter J. Liu to the advisory committee for the Artificial Intelligence Mathematical Olympiad Prize!
Visit the Prize website for more details:
I spoke at Le Collège de France on Monday on "What is proof?". One of the things I show (starting 21 minutes in, ending 35 minutes in) is that a proof can be thought of as a function; this is not the way a mathematician usually thinks about these objects.
I gave a talk at AITP yesterday on the idea of formalising Fermat's Last Theorem in a theorem prover. I think it's now possible, it will just take a long time. Several people on Twitter have asked to see the slides, which summarize the state of the art.
Thanks to Bhavik Mehta for writing a Xena Project blog post on his work formalising the recent breakthrough bounds in Ramsey numbers by Campos, Griffiths, Morris, and Sahasrabudhe.
Formalising modern research mathematics in real time
Video for my plenary lecture at the 2022 International Congress of Mathematicians is up on YouTube! . The IMU has had a *nightmare* organising a hybrid ICM since they pulled out of Russia. Congratulations and thanks to them for getting this up so quickly.
I think it may come as a surprise to many "establishment mathematicians" (for whom the answer to "is ℕ = ℤ?" is probably "obviously no") to see that there are 80+ people out there, some of whom know what they're talking about, who claim that ℕ = ℤ is true. Why? A 🧵. 1/n
Hey algebra Twitter! Imperial undergraduate Kenny Lau just found a cool oversight in the proof of the Artin-Tate lemma in Atiyah--Macdonald, when formalising it in Lean. Of course the proof can be fixed. How to justify "each elt of C is a lin comb of the y_i with coeffts in B_0"?
Interesting experiment by Patrick Massot. He's written a limited controlled natural language for proofs in Lean -- examples of proofs here . These are accepted by Lean's kernel. The parsers doing the work are here
Great: Wiles' work doesn't deal with this case so we need it for the FLT project.
I really like the idea of crowdsourcing a mathematical proof. The project hasn't even started yet but 6 undergraduates at Imperial have already contributed.
My colleagues and I have almost finished the formalisation of Fermat’s Last Theorem for exponent 3 in
@leanprover
.
We‘ll port it in Mathlib as soon as we can so it could be used in the FLT project.
For those interested, here is our
@GitHub
repository: .
Ken Lee and Joseph Hua, two undergraduates at Imperial, have made a HoTT game! The main objective is to prove π₁(S¹)=ℤ. It's written in cubical agda. Instructions on how to play are here . Remark: on ubuntu linux I installed atom and it all just worked.
Mura Yakerson is making videos explaining K-theory! With some friends she's making a series of videos called "K-theory Wonderland" on her YT channel. Here are the first few
Sophie Morel has formalised the first half of her 2019 joint paper in Lean 4. It took her a month; she had 0 Lean 4 experience when she started (but some Lean 3 experience). The formalisation is here . Welcome aboard Sophie!
Lean Together 2024: free online conference 9-12 Jan 2024. More info at . Talks about using Lean for maths, for software verification, UI features etc. Speakers will range from beginners to experts. Discussions, socials etc.
Happy to report that Bloom went on to learn Lean this year and, together with Bhavik Mehta, has now formalised his proof in Lean (including formalising the Hardy-Littlewood circle method), finishing before he got a referee's report for the paper ;-)
Happy to report progress on this! The answer is yes: a set of integers of positive density must contain distinct n_1,...,n_k such that 1/n_1+...+1/n_k=1.
Recently I learnt something which is presumably well-known: spaces of atoms/coatoms have geometry. Or possibly topology -- I think I no longer know the difference :-/ Examples range from projective spaces to Stone-Cech compactifications to affine varieties. Let me explain. 1/n
EPSRC fund formalisation of mathematics! Possibly for the first time? My New Horizons grant to start digitising the Langlands program got funded! Post-doc ad will be out in the new year.
"The projects announced today...will no doubt stimulate breakthroughs in knowledge that will lead to longer-term innovations with societal impact"
The
@EPSRC
has awarded 13 of our academics new grants to undertake ‘adventurous and high-risk research'
If φ:G -> H is a group hom then G/ker(φ) is "canonically" isomorphic to im(φ). We mathematicians are so desperate for this to be "the first isomorphism theorem" but part of the content of Emmy Noether's result is the *definition* of a map G/ker(φ)->im(φ); the theorem comes later.
The reason types are the same thing as sets is that the category of types is equivalent to the category of sets. Everything else is just an implementation detail.
Marking 1st year exam scripts. One question: "give, without proof, a sequence a1,a2,... of irrationals such that for every real x there's a subsequence converging to x". Tricky answers so far: a(n)=tan(n) [yes], a(n)=n*sin(n) [yes I think] but now faced with a(n)=e^n*sin(n) 🤔
PhD position available in the Netherlands to work with Freek Wiedijk on beginning the long journey towards a fully formalised proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. More info at .
(generated by
@RiccardoBrasca
): Proof of the Clausen-Scholze theorem on vanishing of certain higher Exts in the category of condensed abelian groups, as understood by a computer:
I just saw a computer find a (formally verified) proof that if G is a group and a,b in G satisfy abab^2=1 then ab=ba. It's not hard to prove, but until about 2 minutes ago I thought it required some insight.
@chrishughes244
made a Lean tactic following
@AndyPutmanMath
's notes.
Massot, van Doorn and Nash have turned a sphere inside-out in Lean!
They formalised a modern proof of Smale's old result that you can evert a sphere (i.e., turn it inside out, allowing it to pass through itself but not allowing creasing or tearing). 1/3
The Lean prover community now has a blog!
It discusses the ongoing progress of Lean's mathematics library `mathlib` and the papers which are coming from it. Its most recent post is Imperial's own (UG) Jason Ying talking about his work on measure theory.
Gardam's disproof of Kaplansky's unit conjecture was published in the Annals of Mathematics in 2021 and has been formalised in Lean by Siddhartha Gadgil and Anand Rao Tadipatri here . Cutting edge maths formalised in "real time".
Kontorovich-Tao formalising PNT and more in Lean. I'll need the Cebotarev density theorem for FLT so this is a very welcome development! If you have worked through Mathematics In Lean and want to join in, the blue nodes are the ones where you can contribute.
Terry Tao and I are pleased to announce the "Prime Number Theorem and Beyond" project, which you can find here:
with blueprint here:
and dedicated stream in the Leanprover Zulip chat.
The initial goal is to get the Prime Number
Lean's Mathlib slowly but surely continues to eat mathematics. This month: integral schemes are reduced and irreducible, schemes are sober, Tietze's extension theorem, the Banach-Steinhaus theorem, martingales and super/submartingales, and more.Details at
The Lean Focused Research Organization is a new nonprofit dedicated to advancing the Formal Mathematics revolution. You can read about Focused Research Organizations here . Will be very interesting to see what comes out of this.
Funny proof of infinitude of primes via Myhill-Nerode theorem. For natural n>=1, the language L_n := "words in letters {a,b} with number of a's - number of b's = multiple of n" is regular, but the union over all p of L_p is not so can't be a finite union.
You can now play The HoTT Game without having to install cubical agda! 😀Go to , click "new agda session" and then the second icon ("read an existing file into an emacs buffer") and choose an agda file in the TheHoTTGame directory!
I was taught as a maths undergraduate at the University of Cambridge that the quotient of a set by an equivalence relation was a set of sets of things. Nowhere did they ever make it clear that this was just an implementation issue.
Discussion of the AlphaGeometry paper on the Lean Zulip chat . Heather Macbeth and Joseph Myers point out a couple of instances where the computer only solves a weakened version of the IMO problem, or does not give a 7/7 soln. But still clearly SOTA :-)
A team mostly based at DeepMind have created a system which can give accurate natural language solutions to many recent IMO geometry problems .
Note that (this kind of) geometry is decidable and e.g. IMO-level number theory is not. But still amazing!
Thomas Skrivnan has been working on a Lean 4 library for scientific computation. When Lean 4 has a maths library we will be able to prove theorems about the iteratively-generated solutions he has for differential equations (for example error bounds).