proofs VS coq

If you're already familiar with a functional programming language like Haskell or OCaml, you have the prerequisite knowledge to work through my Coq tutorial here: https://github.com/stepchowfun/proofs/tree/main/proofs/Tutor...

My goal with this tutorial was to introduce the core aspects of the language (dependent types, tactics, etc.) in a "straight to the point" kind of way for readers who are already motivated to learn it. If you've heard about proof assistants like Coq or Lean and you're fascinated by what they can do, and you just want the TL;DR of how they work, then this tutorial is written for you.

Any feedback is appreciated!

Personally I treat Coq like an extension of my brain. Whenever I'm uncertain about something, I formalize it in Coq. I have a repository of proofs with GitHub Actions set up in such a way forbids me from pushing commits containing mathematical mistakes. I've formalized various aspects of category theory, type theory, domain theory, etc., and I've also verified a few programs, such as this sorting algorithm. Lately I've been experimenting with a few novel types of graphs, proving various properties about them with the aim of eventually developing a way to organize all of my data (files, notes, photos, passwords, etc.) in some kind of graph structure like that.

It's always a pleasant surprise to see people using Coq and other formal verification technology. We need more rigor in programming! If this article gave you a thirst for interactive theorem proving and you want to learn it from the ground up, I've recently written a Coq tutorial [1] which covers topics like programming with dependent types, writing proofs as data, and extracting verified code. That repository also contains a handy tactic called `eMagic` [1] (a variant of another useful tactic called `magic` which solve goals with existentials) which can automatically prove the theorem from the article.

[1] https://github.com/stepchowfun/proofs/tree/main/proofs/Tutor...

[2] https://github.com/stepchowfun/proofs/blob/56438c9752c414560...

For anyone who wants to learn Coq, I've just finished writing a tutorial [1] that is aimed at programmers (rather than, say, computer scientists). It covers topics like programming with dependent types, writing proofs as data, universes & other type theory stuff, and extracting verified code—with exercises. I hope people find it useful, and any feedback would be appreciated!

[1] https://github.com/stepchowfun/proofs/tree/main/proofs/Tutor...

Hi all, Coq is a "proof assistant" that allows you to write both code and proofs in the same language (thanks to the Curry–Howard correspondence). Its uses range from pure math (e.g., the Feit–Thompson theorem was proven in Coq!) to reasoning about programming languages (e.g., proving the soundness of a type system) to writing verified code (e.g., this verified C compiler!). You can "extract" your code (without the proofs) to OCaml/Haskell/Scheme for running it in production. Coq is awesome, but it's known for having a steep learning curve (it's based on type theory, which is a foundational system of mathematics). It took me several years to become proficient in it. I wanted to help people pick it up faster than I did, so I wrote this introductory tutorial. Hope you find it useful!

The page summarizing the considered new names and their pros/cons is interesting: https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names

Naming is hard...

Are those more important than, say:

- Proven with Coq, a formal proof management system: https://coq.inria.fr/

See in the real world: https://aws.amazon.com/security/provable-security/

And check out Computer-Aided Verification (CAV).

To be ruthlessly, uselessly pedantic - after all, we're mathematicians - there's reasonable definitions of "academic" where logical unsoundness is still academic if it never interfered with the reasoning behind any proofs of interest ;)

But: so long as we're accepting that unsoundness in your checker or its underlying theory are intrinsically deal breakers, there's definitely a long history of this, perhaps more somewhat more relevant than the HM example, since no proof checkers of note, AFAIK, have incorporated mutation into their type theory.

For one thing, the implementation can very easily have bugs. Coq itself certainly has had soundness bugs occasionally [0]. I'm sure Agda, Lean, Idris, etc. have too, but I've followed them less closely.

But even the underlying mathematics have been tricky. Girard's Paradox broke Martin-Löf's type theory, which is why in these dependently typed proof assistants you have to deal with the bizarre "Tower of Universes"; and Girard's Paradox is an analogue of Russell's Paradox which broke more naive set theories. And then Russell himself and his system of universal mathematics was very famously struck down by Gödel.

But we've definitely gotten it right this time...

[0] https://github.com/coq/coq/issues/4294

Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs; they're more useful to guide an implementation in a more practical functional language but then the proof is separated from the implementation, and you could also use tools like TLA+.

https://dafny.org/

https://whiley.org/

https://www.idris-lang.org/

https://isabelle.in.tum.de/

https://leanprover.github.io/

https://coq.inria.fr/

http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

Still, there are many useful tools based on these ideas, used by programmers and mathematicians alike. What you describe sounds rather like Datalog (e.g. Soufflé Datalog), where you supply some rules and an initial fact, and the system repeatedly expands out the set of facts until nothing new can be derived. (This has to be finite, if you want to get anywhere.) In Prolog (e.g. SWI Prolog) you also supply a set of rules and facts, but instead of a fact as your starting point, you give a query containing some unknown variables, and the system tries to find an assignment of the variables that proves the query. And finally there is a rich array of theorem provers and proof assistants such as Agda, Coq, Lean, and Twelf, which can all be used to help check your reasoning or explore new ideas.

What ever happened to the effort [1] to rename Coq in order to make it less offensive? There were a number of excellent proposals [2] that seemed to die on the vine.

[1] https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names

[2] https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names#c%E1%B5%A3...

Information about the Coq proof assistant: https://coq.inria.fr/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq

This type of thing can help you formally verify code.

So, if your proof is correct, and your description of the (language/CPU) is correct, you can prove the code does what you think it does.

Formal proof systems are still growing up, though, and they are still pretty hard to use. See Coq for an introduction: https://coq.inria.fr/

Most of the proof assistants out there: Lean, Coq, Dafny, Isabelle, F*, Idris 2, and Agda. And the main concepts are dependent types, Homotopy Type Theory AKA HoTT, and Category Theory. Warning: HoTT and Category Theory are really dense, you're going to really need to research them.