The article centres on the work of Marijn Heule, a analyst at the Carnegie Mellon College Organized for Computer‑Aided Thinking in Arithmetic, who has been utilizing mechanized thinking tools—particularly SAT solvers—to handle long‑standing numerical issues.
Quanta Magazine
Key points:
Heule has split a few difficult combinatorial or geometric issues (e.g., the “empty hexagon” issue, Schur Number 5, a form of Keller’s Guess in measurement seven) by changing over them into the dialect of propositional rationale (true/false factors) and utilizing SAT solvers.
Quanta Magazine
The thought: take a scientific explanation, encode it as a huge coherent confuse (in impact), at that point let the machine investigate that search‑space. Heule compares it to something like Sudoku: there are imperatives, factors (true/false) and one must discover a fulfilling task or appear none exists.
Quanta Magazine
Heule’s see is that the combination of expansive dialect models (LLMs) + SAT solvers + formal confirmation checkers (e.g., frameworks like Incline) can thrust scientific verification era into a unused period. LLMs offer assistance with high‑level deterioration and lemma era; SAT solvers handle the granular heavy‑logical work; verification checkers confirm rightness and stick everything together.
Quanta Magazine
Heule contends that in arithmetic we frequently esteem “understanding” as well much and “trust” as well small. He says that as long as one can believe the rightness of a machine‑generated verification, that’s great enough—even if people do not completely “understand” each step. “Trust” in the sense of formal confirmation and consistent soundness.
Quanta Magazine
He moreover accentuates that people still have an critical part: coming up with the inventive understanding, breaking down a major hypothesis into congenial lemmas, giving instinct. What machines handle is colossal look and checking. Completely expelling people may be a botch.
Quanta Magazine
Why this is significant
Here are a few reasons why this approach turns heads in both arithmetic and AI/computer‐science:
1. From checking proofs to producing proofs
Historically, computers were utilized to confirm proofs (computerized confirmation checkers) or to help people in investigating proofs. But Heule’s approach is more driven: machines creating unused proofs of articulations (counting ones where people have battled). This marks a move: the machine is not fair a checker but an dynamic prover. His state: “I truly need to see AI unravel the to begin with issue that people cannot.”
Quanta Magazine
2. Encoding science as “puzzles”
The allegory of turning numerical explanations into “puzzles” (in the sense of SAT perplexes) is capable. It reframes the issue of proof‐generation from “humans designing the proof” to “machine looks for fulfilling assignments beneath constraints”. In other words, you recast profound numerical guesses into a combinatorial rationale arrange, where machines excel.
That move in surrounding opens unused conceivable outcomes: what people battle with (colossal look spaces, numerous imperatives) machines can be built to handle.
3. Collaboration between LLMs + SAT + proof‐checkers
Each apparatus covers a distinctive layer:
LLMs: propose high‑level structure, lemmas, decompositions.
SAT solvers: pound through low‑level combinatorial look, discover assignments or counter‐examples.
Proof checkers: guarantee each step is formally substantial, stick lemmas into the full proof.
The combination is more grounded than any alone. Heule’s speculation: this pipeline might handle modern ground.
4. Reexamining “understanding” in mathematics
One of the more provocative claims: understanding isn’t continuously essential in the conventional sense. Heule cites mathematician Timothy Gowers calling one of his proofs “the most nauseating verification ever”. However Heule says that’s affirm if it is adjust. The community frequently likens elegance/understanding with esteem; Heule contends believe (confirmation) can matter more.
Quanta Magazine
This challenges philosophical thoughts of what a confirmation is for: Is it for human understanding, or basically for truth?
5. Opening human mathematicians to unused workflows
Heule envisions human mathematicians working more like extend supervisors, or insight‐providers: they set up the enormous questions, direct the decay, decipher comes about and extricate meaning; the machines do the overwhelming lifting. That seem alter how science work is organized.
How the handle works in practice
Let’s walk through how one might apply this thought in a disentangled way:
Choose a numerical articulation (for case: a long‐standing combinatorial conjecture).
Encoding / representation: Decipher that articulation into a frame reasonable for SAT understanding – speak to components, imperatives, consistent connections as boolean factors, clauses, etc. This is both craftsmanship and science: you must choose the right representation so that look is tractable. Heule accentuates the significance of "encoding".
Quanta Magazine
Automated look: Utilize a SAT solver (or other robotized reasoner) to discover a fulfilling task (i.e., a confirmation) or appear none exists (i.e., a counterexample).
Use LLMs for direction: The LLM may offer assistance recognize valuable sub‐problems (lemmas), propose methodologies, or offer assistance coordinate the decomposition.
Formal confirmation: Once pieces (lemmas) are demonstrated or counter‐examples found, a formal verification partner checks that everything fits and nothing is missing.
Interpretation: People translate the machine’s yield, extricate understanding, and where conceivable streamline or sum up the proof.
Because step 2 (encoding) is so basic, much of the “puzzle” allegory lives there: one must reconceive a high‑level math articulation into a combinatorial rationale amusement (like “fill zeros and ones such that imperatives hold”). That move is what empowers machines to go to work.
Examples and context
Heule’s prior triumphs: For case, the “empty hexagon” issue and other combinatorial articulations. These were handled by encoding them for SAT. (See article).
More broadly: robotized hypothesis demonstrating, computer‐assisted confirmation have long been areas. For occurrence, the four‑colour hypothesis was (mostly) demonstrated by computer‐assisted strategies.
Wikipedia
+1
The article positions this unused work as portion of the “second machine turn” in science: moving from checking to making proofs.
0 Comments