<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Formalization of the fundamental group in untyped set theory using auto2 · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1707.04757/</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/1707.04757/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Formalization of the fundamental group in untyped set theory using auto2 — mentioned by GregarianChild</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26207474</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1707.04757:26207474</guid><pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2021 20:11:33 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The issue is automation: At this point (Feb 2021), the support in interactive theorem provers is just much better for type-theory based mathematics in contrast to set-theory based maths. Whether that is due to technical advantages of type-theory over set theory, or a historical accident, reflecting the much larger amount of attention on type-theory as basis for interactive provers, is a subject of much controversy. Let me cite a leading light in the formalisation of mathematics [1]: &amp;quot;I would guess that the amount of effort and funding going into type theory exceeds the amount that went into…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1707.04757/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
