<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Lean-auto: An Interface between Lean 4 and Automated Theorem Provers · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2505.14929/</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/2505.14929/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Lean-auto: An Interface between Lean 4 and Automated Theorem Provers — mentioned by wizzwizz4</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46925972</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2505.14929:46925972</guid><pubDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2026 18:01:29 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Lean 4 is not a theoretically-interesting proof assistant. If you&amp;#x27;re interested in such things, look into Rocq (which uses CoIC, like Lean, but is more rigorous about it), the HOL logic, Isabelle/HOL&amp;#x27;s automation suite (though Isabelle proper is fairly mediocre, apart from being the thing everyone&amp;#x27;s standardised around), Lean-auto (https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.14929), and whatever SAT solvers are state-of-the-art this week. Like the tools for symbolic integration and frequentist statistics, there isn&amp;#x27;t any magic: the power comes from handling enough uninteresting special-cases that we get broad…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2505.14929/"&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>
