<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Deep Network Guided Proof Search · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.06972/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.06972/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Deep Network Guided Proof Search — mentioned by skissane</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33615737</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1701.06972:33615737</guid><pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2022 22:06:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; As soon as you need reliable outcomes, such as certainty whether an erroneous state can arise in a program, whether a proof for a mathematical conjecture exists, or whether a counterexample exists, exhaustive search is often necessary. Proof checking requires 100% reliability. But if you are searching the space of all possible proofs for a valid one, that process does not require 100% reliability. On the contrary, automated theorem provers rely on heuristics to guide their exploration of that space, none of which work 100% of the time. &amp;quot;Exhaustive search&amp;quot; is an infeasible strategy, because…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.06972/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>Deep Network Guided Proof Search — mentioned by popinman322</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24823949</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1701.06972:24823949</guid><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2020 07:10:03 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;IIRC these nets don&amp;#x27;t actually build a knowledge base (though I may be wrong, it&amp;#x27;s been a while). They&amp;#x27;re still functioning in lossy continuous space. This is probably fine with a low number of symbols and relations, but once you get to the level of a neural theorem prover you need to properly handle symbol binding. If I&amp;#x27;m working with integers and integer-valued variables, how do I represent the variables? How do I represent the operations? This gets more complex once you leave a closed domain, where all the operations and variables are defined up front, and you enter an open domain like…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.06972/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>Deep Network Guided Proof Search — mentioned by nshepperd</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907138</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1701.06972:14907138</guid><pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 01:25:46 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, you can treat proof search as a game tree with &amp;quot;proof states&amp;quot; in the nodes and apply game playing heuristics to guide the search, eg. alphago style. From what I&amp;#x27;ve read, these approaches do work, see for instance https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06972. Nothing spectacular, but it&amp;#x27;s an improvement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.06972/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item><item><title>Deep Network Guided Proof Search — HN submission</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13531954</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:submission:1701.06972:13531954</guid><pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:26:34 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Deep Network Guided Proof Search&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. &lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.06972/"&gt;Paper and source history&lt;/a&gt;. A submission is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.AI</category></item></channel></rss>
