@JDHamkins@ThosVarley I think that having a Lean or Coq formalization proves just shunts the checking from checking the logic into checking that the formal statements really do express the intended ideas. Joel's second point is only majoritatively true (but I can only think of one counter-example)
@mouse_math One of the disadvantages of car-centric (zoned) planning is that it makes it more difficult to give up driving. You are almost under house arrest. When my Dad, in London England, decided he was no longer safe at the wheel, he was still able to walk to the local shops.
@mouse_math Is the lower one the fano plane? There's a lecture on you tube at the Royal Institution by Jordan Ellenberg on beating a lottery with a fano plane.
@littmath Having carefully watched the ludicrous conclusions of efforts to mathematically analyse love by both Eugenia Cheng and Hannah Fry (seperately), I would urge caution.
@littmath@BlakeDemarest12@jasondeanlee I like Andre Baur's idea that with formal proofs the computer verifies the string of symbols. But the human has to verify that the string symbols means what is intended.
@littmath@AcerFur Depending on how similar the two proofs are, it still might be important and influential. We should remember that maths is about the proofs as well as the things being proven.