Revision as of 14:00, 28 May 2012 (view source) Rdm (talk \| contribs) (removed "J version" section, since that version is no longer on the page.) ← Older edit		Revision as of 14:16, 28 May 2012 (view source) Rdm (talk \| contribs) (narrow the scope of my objections to this task) Newer edit →
Line 3: :The task was intended to demonstrate dependent types. I've got some C++ code I'm working that demonstrates how it can be accomplished there. --[[User:Short Circuit\|Short Circuit]] 20:50, 21 December 2007 (MST) == Satisfaction == ~~== Proof vs. Formal Verification ==~~ As it stands, this task is not very satisfying. The Salmon "implementation" attests to that. Perhaps the task should be extended to include some dis-proofs? --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] 14:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC) After reading ''[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.91.8137&rep=rep1&type=pdf Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programs]'', I decided to provide a "mathematical proof" as opposed to an "essentially meaningless" (possible to understand only for trivial concepts) formal verification. If anyone feels they should mark that solution incorrect, please first be prepared to rationally discuss the issues raised in the pdf which I have linked to here. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] 03:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC) == Huh? ==

Talk:Proof: Difference between revisions

Talk:Proof (view source)