[POPLmark] Poplmark Digest, Vol 10, Issue 5
crary at cs.cmu.edu
Mon Jun 5 12:36:56 EDT 2006
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that adequacy for Coq
was implausible; in fact I find it quite plausible. I simply said that
it seems that it would have to rely on a (deep) normalization theorem,
while LF adequacy does not. Nor was that even intended as a criticism.
I was merely rebutting the claim that adequacy for LF is somehow
suspect, whereas adequacy for anything else is trivial.
> The proof theoretic strength is definitely relevant, but my point still
> remains. The meta-theories of both LF and Coq required very serious
> work by top researchers over substantial numbers of years to develop.
> The definitive accounts of LF's meta-theory, both the old approach and
> the new one you mentioned, are only rather recently published (2005 and
> 2004, if I am not mistaken). Thus, I believe it is misleading to
> suggest, as Karl seemed to be doing, that adequacy for LF is a totally
> trivial result, while for something like Coq it is so deep as to be
> The relative proof theoretic weakness of LF may indeed give it an
> advantage for many applications. As you note, however, for development
> of constructive mathematics as in POPLmark, a richer theory may be
More information about the Poplmark