Talk:E (theorem prover)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about E (theorem prover). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
More sources
User: Abductive requested more outside sources. In principle, everything in [1], [2] [3], [4] qualifies - these are direct scientific references to one of the published descriptions of E. Some particularly apropos ones are:
- The CASC articles describing E's performance in the CADE ATP System Competition, e.g. [5],[6], [7], [8], ...
- [9] discusses the reconstruction of E proofs in Isabelle (theorem prover)
- [10] describes the use of E in a verification environment
- [11] compares E to a new tool (including E) used for verification tasks
- [12] compares SPASS, E, and Vampire on the Opencyc corpus
- [13] compares E and other provers on software certification tasks at NASA
--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
My Thoughts On the Stephan Schulz Article
- As per User:Enric Naval, I will Be Bold and transfer most of the article to here — possibly as a footnote. I invite discussion.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have reordered the article and I have created an "author" section. Cramming the whole text into a footnote looked horrible :-) I just had to change it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your effort! I knew that it looked bad, but I couldn't think of any other way to do it! You're right; it looks much better now.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have reordered the article and I have created an "author" section. Cramming the whole text into a footnote looked horrible :-) I just had to change it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Author Section
This section does seem to be rather overly-positive in tone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- OK I have boldly removed the section - the author is named in the into; no more is needed as he is notable only (if at all) as the author. Springnuts (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)