Are those more important than, say: - Proven with Coq, a formal proof management system: https://coq.inria.fr/ See in the real world: https://aws.amazon.com/security/provable-security/ And check out Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago
Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs;... - Source: Hacker News / 9 months ago
Still, there are many useful tools based on these ideas, used by programmers and mathematicians alike. What you describe sounds rather like Datalog (e.g. Soufflé Datalog), where you supply some rules and an initial fact, and the system repeatedly expands out the set of facts until nothing new can be derived. (This has to be finite, if you want to get anywhere.) In Prolog (e.g. SWI Prolog) you also supply a set of... Source: 10 months ago
Information about the Coq proof assistant: https://coq.inria.fr/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq. Source: 12 months ago
This type of thing can help you formally verify code. So, if your proof is correct, and your description of the (language/CPU) is correct, you can prove the code does what you think it does. Formal proof systems are still growing up, though, and they are still pretty hard to use. See Coq for an introduction: https://coq.inria.fr/. - Source: Hacker News / 12 months ago
Most of the proof assistants out there: Lean, Coq, Dafny, Isabelle, F*, Idris 2, and Agda. And the main concepts are dependent types, Homotopy Type Theory AKA HoTT, and Category Theory. Warning: HoTT and Category Theory are really dense, you're going to really need to research them. Source: 12 months ago
Huh? What is this then? A theorem prover is not a title for a person, it's a program (sometimes called 'proof assistant' although there is a subtle difference regarding the amount of automation). Source: about 1 year ago
Related: Coq - https://coq.inria.fr/ And CompCert, a formally verified C compiler written in Coq: https://compcert.org/ (even then, there are parts which are not formally verified, mostly at the interfaces with the outside world). - Source: Hacker News / about 1 year ago
If you're meaning "more similar to common mathematics" then look at Lean or Coq. Source: about 1 year ago
Right now, I'm exploring NFU (a "non-standard" formalization of set theory). My collaborators and I are first trying to see how much can current assisted theorem provers (e.g., Coq) help us work in NFU. Further down the line, we might look at expressing modern type theories within NFU. Source: about 1 year ago
Check out the Coq theorem prover for a modern perspective of where we're at. Source: over 1 year ago
Coq, Agda, Lean, Isabelle, and probably some others which are not coming to my mind at the moment, but those would be considered the major ones. Source: over 1 year ago
Our approach to quantitative reasoning is not grounded in formal mathematics. Minerva parses questions and generates answers using a mix of natural language and LaTeX mathematical expressions, with no explicit underlying mathematical structure. This approach has an important limitation, in that the model’s answers cannot be automatically verified. Even when the final answer is known and can be verified, the model... Source: over 1 year ago
I can use https://coq.inria.fr/. That's a little bit more difficult than using VM technology. Source: over 1 year ago
The computer scientists who are figuring these things out are constructing the tools that software engineers need; just like the mathematicians who developed calculus and the physicists who extended Newtonian mechanics into something engineers can apply. Just as an engineer's tools and materials are calculus and physics (not hammers or concrete and steel), a software engineer's tools and materials are... Source: over 1 year ago
Ask the French about the sensitivities involved in 'bit'. Actually, they've already highlighted the issue, with typical dignity and sophistication: https://coq.inria.fr/ . - Source: Hacker News / over 1 year ago
If you are into obscure language and math proofs, you can try out Coq. Source: over 1 year ago
What solved the problem for me was doing mathematics in a proof assistant. I use Coq, but Lean (which is more popular among mathematicians) works just as well for this purpose. To make a long story short, the proof assistant makes you justify every step in full rigor. There is no distinction between trivial and essential steps. You simply have to do every step. Doing math in a proof assistant gives you the... Source: over 1 year ago
A good place to start is probably the home pages of the two most popular projects, Coq and Isabelle. Source: over 1 year ago
Formally Verifying Rust's Opaque Types An article that is a lot more academic than usual. The author is using Coq to prove a fundamental property of the Rust type system. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago
I you want to do proof with a similar and more dedicated language, you can give Coq a try: https://coq.inria.fr/. Source: over 1 year ago
Do you know an article comparing Coq to other products?
Suggest a link to a post with product alternatives.
This is an informative page about Coq. You can review and discuss the product here. The primary details have not been verified within the last quarter, and they might be outdated. If you think we are missing something, please use the means on this page to comment or suggest changes. All reviews and comments are highly encouranged and appreciated as they help everyone in the community to make an informed choice. Please always be kind and objective when evaluating a product and sharing your opinion.