HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
leanprover-community
ProofWidgets4
Lean2025–2025
leanprover-community / ProofWidgets4

ProofWidgets4

Helper toolkit for creating your own Lean 4 UserWidgets

2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
232GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Helper toolkit for creating your own Lean 4 UserWidgets

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2025-01-10 17:30:26 UTC to 2025-04-13 23:12:23 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012025-01-06 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-13 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 62025-01-13 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-20 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-02-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-02-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-02-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-02-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-02-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-02-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-02-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 172025-02-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-03-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-03-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-03-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-03-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-03-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-03-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-04-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-04-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsApr 7

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jan 62025-01-06 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-13 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 132025-01-13 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-20 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 202025-01-20 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-27 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 272025-01-27 00:00:00 UTC2025-02-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 32025-02-03 00:00:00 UTC2025-02-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 102025-02-10 00:00:00 UTC2025-02-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 172025-02-17 00:00:00 UTC2025-02-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 242025-02-24 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 32025-03-03 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 102025-03-10 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 172025-03-17 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 242025-03-24 00:00:00 UTC2025-03-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 312025-03-31 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 72025-04-07 00:00:00 UTC2025-04-14 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
To me this seems obvious. Copilot might generate wrong things, but what I've seen tends to be human-readable. My experience with Lean is that it feels very much like a functional programming language like Scala, so I'd have to assume that a coding assistant that also knows Lean syntax/libraries would work just like any other programming language. There will perhaps need to be a transition period where we might need to look at basic type theory augmenting or replacing material in introductory proof classes. Instead of truth tables and ZFC, teach math-as-programming. Propositions are types, implications are functions, etc. If you have the right foundation, I think the stuff ends up being quite legible. Mathlib is very abstract which makes it harder to approach as a beginner, but you could imagine a sort of literate programming approach wher
Read the rest
e we walk students through building their own personal Mathlib, refactoring it to use higher abstractions as they build it up, etc. In a sense this is what a math education is today, but with a kind of half-formal, half-natural language and with a bunch of implicit assumptions about what techniques the student really knows (since details are generally omitted) vs. letting them use whatever macros/tactics/theorems they've learned/created in other courses. This could all be especially powerful if the objects you're working with have good Widgets[0][1] so you could visualize and interact with various intermediate expressions. I see tons of potential here. The Lean games[2] also show the potential for a bright future here that's kind of along the lines of "build your own library around topic X" (the NN game has been posted here a few times, but it's actually a framework with other games too!). [0] https://lean-lang.org/lean4/doc/examples/widgets.lean.html [1] https://github.com/leanprover-community/ProofWidgets4/blob/m... [2] https://adam.math.hhu.de/
In Who Can Understand the Proof? A Window on Formalized Mathematics

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.