URur-whale·Jul 25, 2020
The actual Coq code is here:
https://github.com/certichain/ceramist/blob/fd5e522f2c381f7d...
In Bloom filters debunked: Dispelling 30 Years of bad math with Coqverse-lab
ceramist
Coq2020–2020
verse-lab / ceramist
ceramist
Verified hash-based AMQ structures in Coq
2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
128GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Verified hash-based AMQ structures in Coq
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, 5:04:57 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 hour3 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2020-07-25 05:38:58 UTC to 2020-07-25 10:09:45 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 25, 05:00 | 2020-07-25 05:00:00 UTC | 2020-07-25 06:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Jul 25, 06:00 | 2020-07-25 06:00:00 UTC | 2020-07-25 07:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 25, 07:00 | 2020-07-25 07:00:00 UTC | 2020-07-25 08:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 25, 08:00 | 2020-07-25 08:00:00 UTC | 2020-07-25 09:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Jul 25, 09:00 | 2020-07-25 09:00:00 UTC | 2020-07-25 10:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 25, 10:00 | 2020-07-25 10:00:00 UTC | 2020-07-25 11:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
3 sourcesJust to clarify, Bose et al.'s paper was incorrect due to an incorrect definition of Stirling numbers of the second kind (some of their expressions used the wrong exponents). In our certified work, in light of this error, we ended up deriving the expression for Stirling numbers of the second kind from first principles[1], eliding it as a source of errors. As such, the main definition that needs to be human-verified in our work is the actual implementation of the Bloomfilter[2], which is fairly simple and easy to check as being correct.
[1] https://github.com/certichain/ceramist/blob/fd5e522f2c381f7d...
[2] https://github.com/certichain/ceramist/blob/fd5e522f2c381f7d...
In Bloom filters debunked: Dispelling 30 Years of bad math with CoqWhen I was attempting to prove Bloom's original incorrect bound, the work never progressed to the point where I was actively working directly on proving his bound - I managed to prove some intermediate theorems, but was unable to work out a way to compose them. The issue ended up being that that I was unable to derive the independence required to prove the inductive step.
If you're interested at looking at the sources, I think the following commit was around the place where I was working on this: https://github.com/certichain/ceramist/commit/70927c5b50e21a...
In Bloom filters debunked: Dispelling 30 Years of bad math with Coq