On 06/05/2014 04:54, Jean-Jacques Levy wrote:
Dear Why3 Friends!

from time to time, I met difficulties in making a constructive Coq proof 
corresponding to a Why3 goal.  Has anybody met same problem ?

Must of time it comes from translation of Why3 predicates into Prop's, instead 
of a Coq predicate (with truth values). Then it’s hard to express excluded 
middle which I think that automatic solvers use frequently. Although many folks 
repeated to me that constructive proofs are nicer, I have 2 questions:

1- is there any way to get a proof certificate out of automatic solvers ?

Not from Why3. But some solvers, e.g. Z3, produce them on their own. You can take a look at Chantal Keller's work to see how to recover a Coq proof from it, if needed.

2- is it fair to use Classical logic in the Coq stubs translated from Why3 
goals/lemmas ?

Yes, it is fair, since the logic of Why3 already assumes it.

In practice, I never had to assume it though, when doing a Coq proof. Indeed, most of the predicates I get from Why3 are trivially boolean in nature, and thus do not need excluded middle.

Should I move to Isabelle/HOL ?

I can't answer that part, as I haven't played enough with it to know what the shortcomings are, if any. Perhaps Stefan Berghofer can fill you in on that part.

Best regards,

Guillaume

_______________________________________________
Why3-club mailing list
Why3-club@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/why3-club

Reply via email to