This is a really good explanation, but it reinforces my understanding that these “junk maths” are literally undefined behavior as in C and such. They are not defined (in maths), you are not supposed to trigger them, so they can be anything. Great…

This is horrible for a language whose whole purpose I thought was that to be foolproof and that if it compiles its true. Having very subtly different definitions of common operations is such a footgun.

Of course, I understand that this doesn’t bother mathematicians because they are used to not having any guardrails anyways. Just like C programmers have the attitude that if you fall on such a trap, you deserve it and you are not a “real programmer”. But Lean is supposed to be the other extreme isn’t it? Take nothing for granted and verify it from the ground up.

I suppose I am falling for that “Twitter confusion” the post is referring to. I never had any issues with this when actually using Lean. I just don’t like the burden of having to be paranoid about it, I thought Lean had my back and I could use it fairly mechanically by transforming abstract structures without thinking about the underlying semantics too much.

Anyway, despite the annoyance, I do assume that the designers know better and that it is a pragmatic and necessary compromise if it’s such a common pattern. But there must be a better solution, if having the exception makes it uncomfortable to prove, then design the language so that it is comfortable to prove such a thing. Don’t just remove the exception because 99% of the time it doesn’t matter. If we are happy with 99% we wouldn’t be reaching for formal verification, there are much more practical means to check correctness.