smlredprl
coq
smlredprl  coq  

1  87  
225  4,721  
  1.3%  
10.0  10.0  
over 1 year ago  5 days ago  
Standard ML  OCaml  
MIT License  GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 only 
Stars  the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth  month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
smlredprl
coq

Change of Name: Coq –> The Rocq Prover
The page summarizing the considered new names and their pros/cons is interesting: https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternativenames
Naming is hard...

The First Stable Release of a RustRewrite Sudo Implementation
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/provablesecurity/
And check out ComputerAided Verification (CAV).

Why Mathematical Proof Is a Social Compact
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 MartinLöf'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

In Which I Claim Rich Hickey Is Wrong
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.idrislang.org/
https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
https://leanprover.github.io/
https://coq.inria.fr/
http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

If given a list of properties/definitions and relationship between them, could a machine come up with (mostly senseless, but) true implications?
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.

Functional Programming in Coq
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/Alternativenames
[2] https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternativenames#c%E1%B5%A3...

Mark Petruska has requested 250000 Algos for the development of a Coqavm library for AVM version 8
Information about the Coq proof assistant: https://coq.inria.fr/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
 How are people like Andrew Wiles and Grigori Perelman able to work on popular problems for years without others/the research community discovering the same breakthroughs? Is it just luck?

Basic SAT model of x86 instructions using Z3, autogenerated from Intel docs
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/

What are the current hot topics in type theory and static analysis?
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.