coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Chantal Keller <chantal.keller AT wanadoo.fr>
- To: Bradford Larsen <brad.larsen AT gmail.com>
- Cc: coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?
- Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:50:42 +0100
Dear Brad,
I just want to point out the SMTCoq ongoing work
<http://cs.au.dk/~chkeller/Recherche/smtcoq.html> aiming at verifying
SAT and SMT proof witnesses inside Coq. Basic tactics are written on top
of it. Experiments show that the possibly exponential proof witnesses do
not produce a blow up when checking them compared to finding them.
It includes CNF-conversion checking in the Tseitin style. It could
indeed be a good idea to provide a top-level tactic just doing this
conversion, independently from external SAT and SMT solvers.
Best,
Chantal KELLER.
- [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, Bradford Larsen, 12/04/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, Kristopher Micinski, 12/05/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, Bradford Larsen, 12/05/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, Guillaume Melquiond, 12/05/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, Chantal Keller, 12/05/2013
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, J. Ian Johnson, 12/04/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, J. Ian Johnson, 12/05/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, Kristopher Micinski, 12/05/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] Formalization of SAT solver-related problems?, Kristopher Micinski, 12/05/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.