HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
leanprover
lean3
C++2014–2025
leanprover / lean3 · Archived

lean3

Lean Theorem Prover

Languages & CompilersScience & Engineering
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
13Distinct people
16Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.2KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Lean Theorem Prover

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

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

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 2:17:07 AM 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 year16 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-06-21 13:07:37 UTC to 2025-07-30 21:54:52 UTC.

0123452014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 0 submissions, 5 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025

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
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC505
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
tehmillhouse·Jul 21, 2017
If you're interested in this kind of thing, note that Coq can also extract code in Haskell, Scheme and OCaml. If Coq's not quite your cup of tea, Isabelle/HOL is another proof assistant with amazing (dare I say superior?) tooling and automation, and it supports code extraction in SML, OCaml, Haskell and Scala. Microsoft Research's Lean theorem prover is also promising in this regard. Work is almost complete on native code compilation (via C code extraction), allowing you to compile all the constructions you can formalize in Lean directly to native code. (see https://github.com/leanprover/lean/pull/1241 for progress) (Note that none of those code extractors are verified to be correct themselves, lacking a formalization of the target language's semantics. You don't get a mathematical proof that the code you're running does what you specifie
Read the rest
d, but you get pretty damn close.)
In Coq-based synthesis of Scala programs which are correct-by-construction [pdf]
c-cube·May 15, 2017
I don't think so. I'm not really competent to say if the NLP part will be solved soon, but (fully) automated theorem proving is very hard, and I don't see deep learning applying to it very well. What could happen, though (hopefully), is that mathematicians start using more and more the various proof assistants (Coq, Isabelle/HOL, lean, …). These allow to write definitions, statements, theorems in a more programming-like way, with structured proofs; to develop modular libraries; and even in some cases to use automated provers to wave away details of the proofs. The problem of adoption of such provers, however, is a culture problem, not really a technology problem: as said elsewhere, mathematicians do not seem to care too much about formal correctness. It's only if automated tools help gaining insights (automatic search for (counter)example
Read the rest
s, for example; function plotting; builtin algebra solving system… ?) that they will convince more people to use them. Modularity might also be a selling point, but not sufficient to overcome the steep learning curve of these tools. I have some hopes in [lean](https://github.com/leanprover/lean), a new proof assistant inspired from Coq, which puts the focus on good UI and automation.
In Why do many math books have so much detail and so little enlightenment? (2010)

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.