Talk:Larch Prover

Inaccurate description of theorem provers
"Unlike most theorem provers, which attempt to find proofs automatically"

All provers in LCF tradition (Coq, Isabelle, HOL4, HOL Light) are "manual" and even "automatic" like ACL2 needs intermediate lemmas to "fill the dots". Push button theorem proving is mostly unattainable ideal far removed from reality, ignoring all kinds of fundamental limitations (Gödel's incompleteness etc). Or you can say: provers like ACL2 can attempt to find proof automatically, but that quickly fails for anything more complicated (realistic). So, Larch is very typical in it's need for manual intervention. 94.189.137.73 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)