Timeline for Why should I trust Coq when assumption-free proof of False in Coq exists? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2011 at 11:20 | comment | added | joro | @Sam It appears fixed in trunk (which is considered unstable by some) while it doesn't appear fixed in a Coq release version. | |
| Sep 16, 2011 at 15:27 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | See also mathoverflow.net/questions/63816 and tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1037 for a discussion of a related question by joro. | |
| Sep 16, 2011 at 15:15 | comment | added | Sam Nead | Appears to have been fixed a month ago? coq.inria.fr/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2580 | |
| Sep 16, 2011 at 15:14 | history | closed |
Emil Jeřábek Noah Snyder Ben Webster♦ |
not a real question | |
| Sep 16, 2011 at 15:11 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | What's the question here? Certainly you shouldn't believe everything coq says until this bug has been fixed. | |
| Sep 16, 2011 at 14:54 | history | asked | joro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |