0
votes
1answer
656 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
417 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 ...
2
votes
1answer
282 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 ...
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 ...