G\"odel's and Scott's Variants of the Ontological Argument in Lean 4 and TPTP THF
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
This paper reports a full, structure‑preserving port of the Isabelle/HOL dataset on G"odel’s and Scott’s modal ontological arguments to Lean 4. The port consists of 30 Lean 4 modules that mirror the original theories in section structure, declaration order, and naming, and a comparison tool confirms that all 548 statements are identical. The Lean 4 development reproduces every proof from the Isabelle/HOL version—including the inconsistency of G"odel’s 1970 axioms, the repaired variants, Scott’s variant, modal collapse, monotheism, and the ultrafilter property—while also proving five previously unproven statements and documenting the remaining 45 as unresolved. "whyItMatters":"The work demonstrates that Lean 4 can faithfully replicate a complex formal development from Isabelle/HOL, providing a new, lean‑based foundation for further exploration of modal ontological arguments."
arXiv:2609.36279v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The shallow embedding of higher-order modal logic in classical higher-order logic, used in Benzm\"uller and Scott's Notes on G\"odel's and Scott's va...
arXiv:2607. 16372v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interactive theorem proving (ITP) underpins program verification and formalized mathematics, but its manual effort limits scalability.
arXiv:2606. 28841v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly capable of mathematical reasoning, but the proofs they generate are often unreliable and hard to verify.
arXiv:2607. 10880v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We extend, in Isabelle/HOL, the deep-and-shallow embedding methodology of our prior work from propositional to first-order modal logic (FML) with constant-domain Kripke semantics.
arXiv:2608. 05420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can generate text that resembles a mathematical proof, but resemblance does not establish correctness.