[practal]

Don't worry about it, I've showed it to the best people in the field (you would think), and haven't gotten much of a response out of most of them so far. It is a VERY conservative field. At least nobody so far said it's wrong. I am starting to submit now to conferences, let's see how long it takes until people realise what they've got here.

This is not a push-button technology like machine learning. You need to either experience using the logic, which is difficult right now, because there is no proof assistant yet implementing it (there will be something in a few months, I hope). Or you understand the arguments I make in the paper, which so far only two other people sort of have, both of which have a Ph.D. in the field.

But let me assure you, this is the simplest logic out there. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them!

Much more documentation and tooling for this is necessary. It will take some time until it is accessible to most, but that time will come.

[woojoo666]

I wish you the best of luck, it looks like a ton of work, and while I won't pretend to be an expert, I thought it was quite impressive. Automated theorem proving is in its infancy so I'd imagine it's hard to find the right audience, but submitting it to conferences seems like a good bet!

[practal]

Thanks! But it is actually an old field by now, and there are quite a few conferences for it. Although automated theorem proving and interactive theorem proving have developed on different tracks, they are slowly converging in the last 15 years or so.