Talk:Otter (theorem prover)

Suggestion
Has to be expanded / merged with Otter (software).

Mkoval


 * No, it has nothing to do with the other project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability
Otter is the best-known automated theorem prover bar none. There are many highly referenced papers and even whole books among the first few hits at. This article can be very much improved, but notability is not a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability is supposed to flag articles which do not assert their notability. If I thought the subject were simply not notable I would have taken it to AfD. Until such point as the article explains to the casual reader why this is a prominent subject it should be flagged as such. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what the template says: "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services". That is certainly unambiguously wrong. Moreover, unless policy has changed since I last checked, there is no requirement that general articles assert notability - there only is WP:CSD, which refers to individuals, animals, organizations, and web content only. Anyways, if I find some time, I'll improve the article. However, this may take a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Undoing of Merge
The previous merge to Prover9 was noted as controversial on that page and also appears not to have proper attribution per WP:SMERGE/WP:FMERGE. It has therefore been undone. It also lost a couple of cites/referneces.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)