Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 11 of 11
This is the list from proof assistant – Examples, and was (incompleteky) copied by hand into related entries, but we should make it (as done hereby) a standalone to be !include
ed under “Related concepts” in relevant entries
All I did in editing was to group the proof assistants into “based on type/set theory” and “applicable to homotopy type theory”. Experts please hit “edit” and improve on it
Should Haskell be part of the list?
Re #2, no. Haskell is an ordinary programming language. Actually, I think it’s not really right that a proof assistant is a kind of programming language. Most proof assistants resemble and/or include a programming language though. Going to edit.
Better than removing it would be to include it with proper heading. Maybe “Type-checked programming languages”?
But why would that go on this include? I see Haskell is listed at programming language.
Is there a good chance that a newbie reader stumbling upon a page for proof assistants might be interested in learning about the existence of fully typed programming languages?
Haskell is‘a statically typed, purely functional programming language with type inference and lazy evaluation.” I suggest that a link be added to related pages to include mention of functional programming languages and Haskell in particular.
We could, I guess, include a link to a functional programming languages page, but that doesn’t really seem to be to be part of the purpose of a “list of proof assistants” intended to be included in other pages. If some including page also wants a list of functional programming languages, why not have it directly include that?
Actually, looking at some of the pages where this is included, it also seems a bit weird to me to collapse a list of proof assistants with a list of formalization projects. Why not make them two separate lists?
Also, why is Metamath given its own bullet point while Mizar/NuPRL/Isabelle/HOL have to share one? Surely the latter four differ among themselves at least as much as they differ from Metamath.
What distinguishes a “project for formalization of mathematics” from a “library of code in a proof assistant”? For instance, I generally talk about the HoTT/Coq library in the same breath as UniMath as libraries for HoTT in Coq.
Should we list quantomatic?
There is no deep theory of bullet points underlying this. Please go ahead and edit as you see fit.
1 to 11 of 11