alt Hacker NewsInteresting. It's essentially the same idea as in this article: https://substack.com/home/post/p-184486153. In both scenarios, the human is relieved of the burden of writing complex formal syntax (whether Event-B or Lean 4). The human specifies intent and constraints in natural language, while the LLM handles the work of formalization and satisfying the proof engine.
But Lean 4 is significantly more rigid, granular, and foundational than e.g. Event-B, and they handle concepts like undefined areas and contradictions very differently. While both are "formal methods," they were built by different communities for different purposes: Lean is a pure mathematician's tool, while Event-B is a systems engineer's tool. Event-B is much more flexible, allowing an engineer (or the LLM) to sketch the vague, undefined contours of a system and gradually tighten the logical constraints through refinement.
LLMs are inherently statistical interpolators. They operate beautifully in an Open World (where missing information is just "unknown" and can be guessed or left vague) and they use Non-Monotonic Reasoning (where new information can invalidate previous conclusions). Lean 4 operates strictly on the Closed World Assumption (CWA) and is brutally Monotonic. This is why using Lean to model things humans care about (business logic, user interfaces, physical environments, dynamic regulations) quickly hits a dead end. The physical world is full of exceptions, missing data, and contradictions. Lean 4 is essentially a return to the rigid, brittle approach of the 1980s expert systems. Event-B (or similar methods) provides the logical guardrails, but critically, it tolerates under-specification. It doesn't force the LLM to solve the Frame Problem or explicitly define the whole universe. It just checks the specific boundaries the human cares about.
Replies
>> LLMs are inherently statistical interpolators. They operate beautifully in an Open World (where missing information is just "unknown" and can be guessed or left vague) and they use Non-Monotonic Reasoning (where new information can invalidate previous conclusions).
I think LLM reasoning is not so much non-monotonic as unsound, in the sense that conclusions do not necessarily follow from the premises. New information may change conclusions but how that happens is anyone's guess. There's some scholarship on that, e.g. there's a series of papers by Subarao Kamphampathi and his students that show how reasoning models' "thiking" tokens don't really correspond to sound reasoning chains, even if they seem to improve performance overall [1].
But it is difficult to tell what reasoning really means in LLMs. I believe the charitable interpretation of claims about LLM reasoning is that it is supposed to be informal. There is evidence both for and against it (e.g. much testing is in fact on formal reasoning problems, like math exam questions or Sokoban, but there's tests of informal reasoning also, e.g. on the bar exam). However, different interpretations are hard to square with the claims that "we don't understand reasoning"; not a direct quote, but I'm aware of many claims like that by people whose job it is to develop LLMs and that were made at the height of activity around reasoning models (which seems now to have been superseded by activity around "world models") [1].
If LLMs are really capable of informal reasoning (I'm not necessarily opposed to that idea) then we really don't understand what that reasoning is, but it seems we're a bit stuck because to really understand it, we have to, well, formalise it.
That said, non-monotonic reasoning is supposed to be closer to the way humans do informal reasoning in the real world, compared to classical logic, even though classical logic started entirely as an effort to formalise human reasoning; I mean, with Aristotle's Syllogisms (literally "rsasonings" in Greek).
________________
[1] Happy to get links if needed.
I think it’s better to think of an LLM as a very good hint engine. It’s good at coming up with more possibilities to consider and less good at making sure they work, unless it has an external system to test ideas on and is trained to use it. In the case of applied math, it’s not enough to prove theorems. It also needs to be testing against the real world somehow.
So basically you are arguing a Type Theory vs Set Theory problem, Foundationalism or Engineering Refinement. Since we read here of multiple use cases for LLMs in both CS divides, we can conclude an eventual convergence in these given approaches; and if not that, some formal principles should emerge of when to use what.
Lean 4 is uses constructive logic. If a closed world assumption requires that a statement that is true is also known to be true, and that any statement that is not known to be true is therefore false, that is not true of constructive systems. I only use Rocq, but I believe the type theories in Rocq and Lean 4 are basically similar variations on the Calculus of Constructions in both cases, though there are important differences. In a constructive theory something is true if a proof can be constructed, but the lack of a proof does not entail that something is false. One needs to prove that something is false. In constructive type theory, one can say, that something is true or false.