[Gehinnn]

Has there ever been a bug that allowed to prove a previously unproven statement, without allowing the user to prove "false" by exploiting the bug directly?

If every bug-exploiting proof would make it easy to prove false, putting a bounty on proving false could increase trust in the validity of verified but obscure Lean proofs.

[estherney]

We want Lean4 (or any other deduction system that we use, for that matter) to be correct, i.e. "what is a true statement" and "what is a derivable statement" should be the same.

"every statement that can be derived also holds" is the difficult part to show, and something we refer to as soundness. For some fancy logics, it's not even possible to show, hence the discovered Kernel Soundness Bug in Lean!

"every statement that holds can also be derived", a notion known as completeness, is often a trivial property; in practice, we use refutation completeness instead, i.e. "every statement that doesn't hold can derive false". A bug that would allow a user to prove/derive a previously unproven statement would fall under this category of "completeness bug".

However, such completeness bugs immediately show up in testing. Generally, deduction systems have two kinds of rules: a handful of rules that are enough to establish (refutation) completeness, and then a few extra rules to optimize inference. Because so few rules are needed for completeness, lots of test cases will break if one of the rules break.

--

I'm not actually sure how the completeness situation looks like for proper provers like Lean. It's my graduate student's hubris to assume completeness remains easy to show for more advanced systems than the Superposition calculus ;)

[cyphar]

Don't Godel's incompleteness theorems mean that completeness is a property you don't want in a prover (as it means the prover must then be inconsistent and this unsuable) and consistency is a property of the prover you cannot prove using the prover itself?

[logicallee]

>"what is a true statement" and "what is a derivable statement" should be the same.

you mention completeness in the rest of your comment, so I'm not sure how you aren't aware of this, but the famous incompleteness theorem says that for a consistent set of axioms there will always be true statements you can't prove.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theor...

[markasoftware]

A correctness bug in a proof checker by definition means that you can prove false.