added pointer to 1lab
]]>I see that you added (here) a bunch of links for cubital type checkers.
The link you had for cubical Agda I have bent to point to the nLab page section Cubical Agda
]]>The UniMath project has also started a library in Agda (called unimath-agda)
Anonymous
]]>added a few proof assistants based upon cubical type theory and modal type theory, as well as the Andromeda proof assistant
Anonymous
]]>added item for DisCoPy
]]>There is no deep theory of bullet points underlying this. Please go ahead and edit as you see fit.
]]>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?
]]>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.
]]>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?
]]>But why would that go on this include? I see Haskell is listed at programming language.
]]>Better than removing it would be to include it with proper heading. Maybe “Type-checked programming languages”?
]]>Removed Haskell.
]]>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.
]]>Should Haskell be part of the list?
]]>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
]]>