Talk:Larch Prover

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Inaccurate description of theorem provers

Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"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

Add topic