Talk:Proof assistant
![]() | Computer science Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Mathematics Start‑class Mid‑priority | |||||||||
|
|
See also (merge?) Computer-assisted proof Outs 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Human help
- "a human can guide the search for proofs"
- Can someone give an example where there is a practical need for a human to guide the search for a proof? What kind of proof steps are better done by humans? --Abdull (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Agda
- I'm not quite sure where to put it in this list, but Agda probably belong here, too. KLuwak (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Small Kernel
I have experience of using Agda and Coq, and as far as I know their source code neither of them has a small kernel. --Konstantin.Solomatov (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Comparison table: contents and meaning?
It would be great to add the logic language and rules used by the system (even if some PA like Isabel can deal with more than one set of rules).
I edited the table where I thought some of the feature evaluations were unclear. What are "partial" dependent types, for instance? There either are or aren't some types dependent on specific values. So far as I know, that's the definition of dependent types. If someone wants to put "partial" back, could they please explain what it means? Similarly for proof automation, ACL2 and PVS---which do not have small trusted computing bases---were listed as having "partial" automation because the automation is unverified; i.e., it is in the TCB. That seems already addressed in the Small Kernel section, to me.
This is a minor improvement, but I think overall it's not clear why the specific set of features in the table were chosen, or what exactly constitutes "partial" or N/A. Nothing in the table has a citation, for instance, to show that some reputable source both considers these criteria significant and agrees with the results presented here.