Classical logic isn’t rejected in computer science. Computer science papers don’t generally care if their proofs are non-constructive, just like in mathematics.
Intuitionism is just disallowing the law of the excluded middle (that propositions are either true or they are not true). Disallowing non-constructive proofs is a related system to intuitionism called “constructivism”. There are rigorous formulations of mathematics that are constructive, intuitionist or even strict finitist.
How have you used the Curry Howard correspondence to make proving the correctness of non-trivial algorithms easier (than, say, Isabelle/HOL or TLA+ proofs)?
The thing is, the LLM mostly just states what it did, and doesn't really explain it (other than "I didn't understand what I was doing before doing it. I didn't read Railway's docs on volume behavior across environments."). Humans are able of more introspection, and usually have more awareness of what leads them to do (or fail to do) things.
LLMs are lacking layers of awareness that humans have. I wonder if achieving comparable awareness in LLMs would require significantly more compute, and/or would significantly slow them down.
While a sequence where one possible subsequence never appears has probability zero in the limit, it’s still a possible random outcome. Incidentally, every concrete infinite sequence has probability zero.
In the title image, the isometric view makes the yellow (O) and green (S) tile have the same outline. My brain makes the S toggle to an O with misdrawn lines.
reply