Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a241cd59adc726b9

Jump to content

Talk:Larch Prover

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 94.189.137.73 in topic Inaccurate description of theorem provers

Inaccurate description of theorem provers

[edit]

"Unlike most theorem provers, which attempt to find proofs automatically"

All provers in LCF tradition (Coq, Isabelle, HOL4, HOL Light) are "manual" and even "automatic" like ACL2 needs intermediate lemmas to "fill the dots". Push button theorem proving is mostly unattainable ideal far removed from reality, ignoring all kinds of fundamental limitations (Gödel's incompleteness etc). Or you can say: provers like ACL2 can attempt to find proof automatically, but that quickly fails for anything more complicated (realistic). So, Larch is very typical in it's need for manual intervention. 94.189.137.73 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply