Never underestimate the power of shame on the human psyche. Many would rather double down on the "reality distortion field" than to admit wrongdoing or poor judgement.
I would argue there is merit in keeping a platform separate for the purpose of education. Humans shape their tools that in turn shape themselves.
In a general purpose theorem proving environment, such as with Lean, there is a different attitude about what level of abstraction to expose by default. It's less intuitive to a child to have a tutor need to explain what it means for a function to be `unsafe` than it is to explain what it means to `print` an expression.
By creating a separate platform, you can set these defaults to curate different kinds of engagement with users. Take the `processing` language as an example. While it's Java under the hood, the careful curation of the programming environment incentivizes learners to play with it like a toy, increasing creative expression and fault-less experimentation.
I agree but it's interesting to observe that occasionally a work can morph. Racket is a good example. Initially an academic toy, these days it performs quite well and has an expansive ecosystem.
I recall reading someone who proposed the need for what they dubbed "meta-science," and I think it's clear that this concept is becoming more needed as time goes on. Our publishing process, and the incentives therein, are obviously faulty and we are aware of it. We can do the math: I believe it's time we do away with playing speculative games with science.
This is exciting news! Though, there is more than just the math that needs to be done here. Namely, mathematicians not only need to formalize a concise language to bridge the gap with modern conformal field theory, but they will also need a way to understand the computability of models based on this system. And yet, there is also the human factor: namely, there needs to be an effort to sell this paradigm to existing theorists, which will require substantial effort.
Can you say more about computability of "conformal models" in the Langlands context (beyond vibes, perhaps cites)? In my understanding, "conformal models" are by construction computable..
Oops, yeah, my bad. I've been doing a deep dive into lean4 and ended up conflating the use of the term computability from that context. Sorry, for the confusion!
The excitement of new horizons is necessary for innovation, and a substack article is a safe way to express that excitement. It's clearly understood by the choice of medium that this is meant to be speculation, so there aren't any significant risks in engaging with the text on its own terms.
reply