I am not sure of the premise. You can have a filter which takes garbage in and outputs the clean data from the garbage, a denoiser. Also your definition of slop is not specific to slop. Any input can be garbage, including this human sourced and thought comment.
To be clear, I am deep into auto-research, but hooking up slop to slop is just unlikely to produce anything valuable.
Value is in how maths is communicated: The process, frustrations, triumphs, etc.
We have to able to take generated formalizations from “it compiles” to “it is correct” before crystallizing them.
> hooking up slop to slop is just unlikely to produce anything valuable
Do you have a formal proof of that?
Premises: Garbage in implies garbage out (first principle of computer science) The input is possibly, but not necessarily garbage (definition of slop)
By the standard methods of modal logic, it follows that it is possible that the output is garbage and therefore slop by definition. QED.
I am not sure of the premise. You can have a filter which takes garbage in and outputs the clean data from the garbage, a denoiser. Also your definition of slop is not specific to slop. Any input can be garbage, including this human sourced and thought comment.
Nevertheless, the proof is valid and easy to certify