4 ms·
Thank you for the write-down, it is very interesting! Is there some reason why Rocq is the proof assistant of choice and not one of the others? also.... htt
by hackingonempty 1y ago
Thank you for the write-down, it is very interesting!
Is there some reason why Rocq is the proof assistant of choice and not one of the others?
also.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3sOuEv0E2I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3sOuEv0E2I
- nathanrf 1y agoIt is as simple as: the person who contributed the proofs/implementations chose Rocq. I did some small proofs in Dafny for a few of the simpler deciders (most of which didn't end up being used). At the time, I found Dafny's "program extraction" (i.e. transpilation to a "real" programming language) very cumbersome, and produced extremely inefficient code. I think since then, a much improved Rust target has been implemented.
- LegionMammal978 1y agoIts focus around constructible objects does lend itself well to the kind of proofs needed for non-halting. Usually they involve lemmas about the 'syntax' of a TM's configuration and how it evolves over time, and the actual number-based math is relatively simple. (With the exception of Skelet #17, which involves fiddly invariants of finite sequences.)