0
votes
1answer
642 views

Is there any danger far from home? (Edited & Revised Version) [closed]

The notion of formal proof is defined by finite sequences ($<\omega$ - sequences) of sentences. In some sense if a sentence $\sigma$ is (finitely) provable from the theory $T$ it is very "near" to ...
2
votes
1answer
343 views

Hilbert style axiomatic proof or sequent Calculus?

I am puzzling with the question which of the two proof systems (Hilbert style axiomatic proofs or substructural Sequent Calculi) is the most discriminatory? With discriminatory I mean is which proof ...
1
vote
1answer
298 views

Since an inconsistent system can prove its own consistency…

Say a proof for the consistency of a formal system (proved within the formal system) is known. There are two possible cases: 1. the formal system is consistent and it can be and has been proven to be, ...
2
votes
1answer
275 views

Sequent calculus: is there a complete linear reasoning (i.e., no trees)?

In Gentzen's sequent calculus, a formal proof is described by a tree, with each node representing the sequent obtained from the child(ren) by applying a given inference rule. If no inference rule has ...
15
votes
3answers
779 views

Finite versions of Godel' s incompleteness

Assume you have some notion of proof complexity: for instance, at the basic level, the length of a proof, or the number of symbols used, take your pick (there are more involved measures, but for sake ...
10
votes
2answers
2k views

Consequences of technically proving anything in Coq (on at least Linux) exploiting a bug? [closed]

Technically, it is possible to prove anything in Coq proof assistant [1] (on at least Linux) due to a programming feature (or bug). This seems tractable when validating large proofs. Human analysis ...