The problem with this is that it is very difficult to figure out what counts as a legitimate proof. What level of rigor is required, exactly? Are they allowed to memorize a proof beforehand? If not, how much are they allowed to know?
Yeah what would be ideal is if theorem provers were more usable and then this wouldn’t be an issue (although of course there’s still the issue of library code vs. from scratch code but this seems easier to deal with).
Memorizing a proof seems fine (in the same way that I assume you end up basically memorizing the game map if you do a speedrun).
The problem with this is that it is very difficult to figure out what counts as a legitimate proof. What level of rigor is required, exactly? Are they allowed to memorize a proof beforehand? If not, how much are they allowed to know?
Solutions might be better to go with than proofs—if the answer is wrong, that’s more straightforward to show that whether or not a proof is wrong.
Yeah what would be ideal is if theorem provers were more usable and then this wouldn’t be an issue (although of course there’s still the issue of library code vs. from scratch code but this seems easier to deal with).
Memorizing a proof seems fine (in the same way that I assume you end up basically memorizing the game map if you do a speedrun).