News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Proving false in Coq using an implementation bug by dkubb on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @09:27PM (#9260736)
Is it possible to prove most of the system so that the remaining unprovable parts are minimized?
Re:Proving false in Coq using an implementation bug by jbapple on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @11:23PM (#9261103)
Unfortunately, it is sometimes the case that the remaining unprovable part is the most epistemologically dubious part.

See, for instance, "Coq in Coq", by Bruno Barras and Benjamin Werner, http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~barras/publi/coqincoq.pdf , in which the Calculus of Inductive Constructions is used to prove the consistency of the Calculus of Constructions.

See also John Harrison's "Towards self-verification of HOL Light", http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jrh13/papers/holhol.pdf , and Gentzen's consistency proof, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentzen%27s_consistency_proof , which use similar strategies (by assuming the existence of an inaccessible and assuming recursion up to epsilon_0).

Sometimes one can get relative consistency results. For instance, I believe it is provable in ZF that if ZF is consistent, so if ZF+AC+(V=L)+GCH.

Re:Proving false in Coq using an implementation bug by TheLoneWolfling on Tuesday March 24, 2015 @10:09PM (#9260882)
Yep.

And there are proof systems that use this approach (i.e. build a series of provers that each prove the next (more complex) one).