I'm curious as to whether you think the status of your "Central Dogma" has changed in the light of recent developments as is perhaps suggested by this NSF solicitation.
When asserting that "there are far more worthy proposals in more conventional areas than the number already being funded", is this primarily because the Central Dogma (say - an effective, wholesale formalization of mathematics) remains a chimera or is it because, say post-GenAI/Lean etc., such mechanization now seems inevitable but with the claimed downsides/risks? In other words, is this proposal less worthy than those in conventional areas because the Central Dogma is true or because it is false?
The picture of "the differential equation with less than 3 elephants" calls to mind Jim Gleick's lovely phrase in Chaos that one could describe mammals as "non-elephant animals".
I'm curious as to whether you think the status of your "Central Dogma" has changed in the light of recent developments as is perhaps suggested by this NSF solicitation.
When asserting that "there are far more worthy proposals in more conventional areas than the number already being funded", is this primarily because the Central Dogma (say - an effective, wholesale formalization of mathematics) remains a chimera or is it because, say post-GenAI/Lean etc., such mechanization now seems inevitable but with the claimed downsides/risks? In other words, is this proposal less worthy than those in conventional areas because the Central Dogma is true or because it is false?
The picture of "the differential equation with less than 3 elephants" calls to mind Jim Gleick's lovely phrase in Chaos that one could describe mammals as "non-elephant animals".