:PROPERTIES:
:CREATED:  [2026-05-24 Sun]
:ID:       8b9c0d1e-2f3a-4b5c-6d7e-8f9a0b1c2d3e
:END:
#+title: Could Passepartout Bootstrap Mathematica or mathlib by Itself?
#+filetags: :ideas:lisp:passepartout:mathematics:

This extends the previous viability analysis with a specific scenario: assuming Passepartout exists at Stage 3+ (full Lisp machine with neurosymbolic engine, verification gate, and self-modification capability), how hard would it be for it to recreate Mathematica or mathlib in pure Common Lisp on its own?

**The bootstrap is architectural, not aspirational.**

The neurosymbolic engine is not just a faster way to write code. It is a closed loop: the LLM proposes implementations, the symbolic engine and ACL2 prover verify correctness, and the self-modification system hot-reloads the result into the running image. This loop runs autonomously, without human intervention. The system writes code, tests it formally, improves it, and keeps the result — permanently expanding its own capability.

This is fundamentally different from a human writing Mathematica. A human writes code, compiles, tests, debugs. Passepartout writes code, has it verified against a formal specification, and loads it into its own runtime. The iteration speed is not hours or days — it is seconds per function, limited only by the LLM's generation latency and the prover's checking time.

**What Passepartout already has.**

At Stage 3, the system ships with:

- A symbolic term-rewriting engine (the evaluator itself is one)
- Pattern matching and rule-based transformation (native to the gate architecture)
- ACL2 as a verification backend (can prove properties of generated code)
- An LLM oracle for proposing implementations (the probabilistic brain)
- A self-modification system (hot-reloads verified code into the running image)
- A knowledge store with persistent facts (gbrain-derived)

These are not general-purpose tools that happen to be useful for symbolic mathematics. They are the same tools that a computer algebra system needs, expressed in the same architecture. The evaluator that rewrites a gate policy is the same mechanism that rewrites a symbolic expression.

**What it needs to generate.**

| Component | Can Passepartout generate it? | How |
|---|---|---|
| Core symbolic evaluator | Yes, trivially — this is what Lisp *is* | The existing evaluator already does term rewriting. The neurosymbolic engine would create a higher-level pattern-matching layer over it. |
| Computer algebra (differentiation, integration, simplification) | Yes — known algorithms, formally specifiable | LLM proposes implementation of Risch algorithm, polynomial GCD, Gröbner bases. ACL2 verifies the specification. |
| Numerical libraries (BLAS, special functions, optimization) | Partial — better to wrap | ACL2 cannot verify floating-point numerics to the same standard. Passepartout would wrap existing C/C++ libraries via Clasp-style interop and verify the interface, not the numerics. |
| Visualization framework | Yes — UI code, not math | The environment subsystem (Nyxt/Lish) already has rendering primitives. The neurosymbolic engine generates plotting and graphics code against them. |
| The 5,000+ function standard library | Yes — volume, not novelty | This is the dominant cost. Each function is individually trivial (differentiate x^3 → 3x^2) but there are thousands. Passepartout generates them at LLM speed — roughly one function every 10-30 seconds including verification. |
| Formal proofs of mathematical theorems (mathlib) | Qualified yes — different logic | mathlib is in Lean's dependent type theory. Passepartout's ACL2 is first-order logic. The theorems can be re-proven in ACL2, but the proofs are not portable. The LLM proposes proof strategies, ACL2 checks them. |

**The rate limit is generation, not computation.**

If Passepartout generates one verified function every 20 seconds (conservative — LLM proposal time + ACL2 verification), that is 180 functions per hour, ~4,300 per day. Mathematica's standard library contains roughly 6,000 documented functions. At this rate, the standard library would take ~1.5 days of continuous generation — assuming the LLM has the domain knowledge to produce correct implementations and ACL2 can verify them.

This is the critical assumption. The LLM (at, say, GPT-4 or DeepSeek level) already knows what every Mathematica function does. It has seen them in training data. The question is whether it can generate a correct Lisp implementation with a formal specification that ACL2 can verify. For most elementary functions (differentiate, integrate polynomial, singular value decomposition, string split, image histogram), the answer is yes — these are well-understood algorithms with clear specifications.

For specialized domains (elliptic curve cryptography, tensor network contractions, symbolic regression of differential equations), the LLM may generate approximately correct implementations that need refinement. The neurosymbolic loop handles this: ACL2 catches the mismatch, feeds the error back, and the LLM regenerates.

**mathlib is a different problem.**

mathlib is not a library of algorithms but a library of formal proofs — mathematical theorems expressed in Lean's dependent type theory, structured as a hierarchy of definitions, lemmas, and tactics. It represents hundreds of person-years of community effort, formalizing undergraduate mathematics and beyond.

Passepartout's verification layer is ACL2, which operates in a different logical framework (first-order logic with induction for total functions, not dependent types). There is no porting mathlib — it would have to be re-proven in ACL2's logic.

The advantage is that the theorems are already known. mathlib tells you exactly what to prove. The LLM reads the Lean statement, translates it to an ACL2 theorem, proposes a proof strategy, and ACL2 attempts the proof. This is a well-structured task for the neurosymbolic loop: the LLM generates proof plans, ACL2 verifies them, and failed attempts feed back to refine the next plan.

The bootstrapping advantage: early proofs (basic arithmetic, set theory) strengthen the ACL2 reasoning library, which makes later proofs (real analysis, topology) faster. The system accelerates as it goes. mathlib's proof dependency graph is the natural generation order.

Estimated timeline for mathlib-equivalent in ACL2, with Passepartout generating autonomously:

| Milestone | Time estimate | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Basic arithmetic, algebra, number theory | Days — standard library material | Well-known proofs, simple structure |
| Real analysis, measure theory | Weeks — proof complexity increases | Non-trivial but well-studied |
| Abstract algebra (groups, rings, fields) | Weeks — structural, builds on itself | The neurosymbolic loop excels here |
| Topology, algebraic topology | Months — conceptual depth | Proofs are longer, more strategic |
| Category theory, homological algebra | Months — abstraction barrier | High-level abstraction, fewer verification primitives |
| Number theory deep results (FLT, modular forms) | Unknown — research frontier | Passepartout is not proving open problems. It formalizes known results. |

**The bootstrapping compound effect.**

The most interesting property is not that Passepartout can generate Mathematica's library. It is that each generated function becomes part of Passepartout's own capability. After generating the differentiation function, Passepartout uses it to generate the integration function. After generating linear algebra, it uses that to generate optimization algorithms. After generating formal proofs of real analysis, it uses those theorems to verify more complex deductions.

This is not a production pipeline. It is an autodidactic loop: the system generates math, then uses that math to generate more math. The acceleration is exponential in the early phases and linear in the later phases, limited by the rate at which the LLM can produce new correct specifications.

**The real barrier is not technical but oracular.**

At every step, Passepartout depends on the LLM's knowledge of existing mathematics. The LLM has seen most of human mathematical knowledge in its training data. It can propose correct implementations and proof strategies because it has seen them. But for genuinely new mathematics — theorems not present in the training data, algorithms that have not been discovered — the LLM has no signal. Passepartout would be limited by its oracle.

Stage 7 acknowledges this: oracular limits are fundamental. The verification subsystem can check correctness against a specification, but it cannot generate the specification itself. The LLM provides the what; ACL2 verifies the that. Neither provides the why that extends beyond existing knowledge.

**Conclusion.**

Recreating Mathematica's standard library: **days to weeks** of autonomous generation. The volume problem is solvable because the LLM already knows the answer space and ACL2 can verify each function. No human intervention required.

Recreating mathlib's formal proof corpus: **months** of continuous formalization. The neurosymbolic loop maps naturally onto the task of converting known theorems from one logical framework to another. The dependency graph of mathlib provides the optimal generation order.

Neither requires new research. Both are engineering throughput problems that Passepartout's architecture is designed to solve: generate, verify, reload, repeat. The only hard limit is the oracle — the system cannot generate mathematics that the LLM does not already know exists.

---

- [[id:7a8b9c0d-1e2f-3a4b-5c6d-7e8f9a0b1c2d][Viability of open-source Wolfram/Mathematica in Lisp]] — the human-driven assessment
- [[id:1c3ec48b-446c-50d2-b53e-126a81f5143f][Passepartout Architecture]] — the verification and self-modification systems
