Your comment also reminds me of the people who claim that the Curry-Howard isomorphism means "programming is math". It's not a claim that anyone should really be making in good faith. There's a lot more to programming than the lambda calculus.
Your comment also reminds me of the people who claim that the Curry-Howard isomorphism means "programming is math". It's not a claim that anyone should really be making in good faith. There's a lot more to programming than the lambda calculus.
Is Quantum Logic the correct propositional logic? Is Quantum Logic a sufficient logic for all things?
I'd much rather work with machine-checkable proofs; though Lean is not what I've been taught math in either.
Coq-HoTT is written in Coq, not Lean.
A tool that finds the correspondence between proofs as presented and checkable proofs in a reasonable syntax would be helpful, I think.
If I start with "Why is 2+2=4?" [in this finite ring], I'm not sure how to find the relevant Lean code in Mathlib to prove my bias inductively, deductively, or abductively
Curious about the references!
This is an urban legend inspired by this article [1]. One problem with this research though is that it studies language learning. Not how good a programmer one becomes, and certainly not career success.
[1]: Relating Natural Language Aptitude to Individual Differences in Learning Programming Languages. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-60661-8