Ask HN: Is there something like a "FactChain"?

Re:Ask HN: Is there something like a "FactChain"? by Terr_ on Monday March 24, 2025 @02:51PM (#43464222)

Compare:

* A system of computable logic to represent real-world science... which uses a blockchain.

* An interstellar probe... controlled by smartphone app.

In each case, the first part is huge unsolved problem of deep complexity and hard-work, and the second part is a side bonus that can be added later.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Is there something like a "FactChain"? by Fr3dd1 on Monday March 24, 2025 @03:02PM (#43464325)

I like that comment, gave me a smile :D You are truly correct, thats why I asked if something like that already exists.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Is there something like a "FactChain"? by Terr_ on Monday March 24, 2025 @04:01PM (#43464854)

You might be interested in something like Coq [0], but even with literal software it's very very hard to prove logical correctness, let alone wishy-washy real-world things like "when I mixed these two chemicals they turned greenish which probably suggests X."

Best I can see happening is a way to visualize relationships between research papers so that humans can argue over what it really means. Like a graph of edges where "this paper cites that one and one strongly depends on it being true for its own conclusions", or "this one claims it did/didn't disprove that other one", and retroactive additions like "an outside observer noticed that X and Y are probably either both correct or both incorrect."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocq_(software)

[ Parent | on HN ]