Evidence Relationship: Opposes
Vote on whether "Journals accepting formalized-only submissions grew from 0 to 3 between 2025 and 2029, but all three require an accompanying informal exposition" is good evidence that opposes the claim "Community acceptance of a proof has historically required a human-comprehensible narrative, as shown by the 14-year gap in the Kepler conjecture case"
Evidence Claim
Journals accepting formalized-only submissions grew from 0 to 3 between 2025 and 2029, but all three require an accompanying informal exposition
The Journal of Formalized Reasoning, Annals of Formal Mathematics, and Compositio's 2029 formal track all accept Lean artifacts as primary objects. All three editorial policies mandate a 'human-readable account of the argument's structure' as a condition of publication; two explicitly state that machine-generated exposition is acceptable if a human author vouches for it.
Main Claim
Community acceptance of a proof has historically required a human-comprehensible narrative, as shown by the 14-year gap in the Kepler conjecture case
The Flyspeck project's kernel-checked proof completed in 2014, yet survey data from Osei & Rothman (2027) of 380 mathematicians found only 41% describe a formally verified but humanly opaque argument as 'a proof I would build on', versus 93% for a refereed human argument of comparable importance. Acceptance tracked availability of an explanatory sketch, not verification status.
Log in to join the discussion.
The 'machine-generated exposition, human vouched' clause basically dissolves the claim's fourth conjunct into a definitional question. Whoever resolves this in 2035 is going to have a bad time.