I have spent several months doing proofs in Coq, as well as in Isabelle. I contest conflating Coq with "real logic", it is perfectly possible to do rigorous pro

I have spent several months doing proofs in Coq, as well as in Isabelle. I contest conflating Coq with "real logic", it is perfectly possible to do rigorous proofs without the aid of a computer-aided proof assistant, if that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be any reason to trust the authors of the proof assistant in the first place.