https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1412.8091/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18518960urn:hackerpapers:mention:1412.8091:18518960Fri, 23 Nov 2018 21:17:00 GMT<p>Different systems can have very different logical foundations, so converting proofs from a system to another can be very complicated in general. Even when converting is possible, the converted proof might be very anti-idiomatic in the target system, in more or less the same way one automatically converting Haskell to C is likely to produce very anti-idiomatic C. Also, communities do not necessarily compete for this list. Keeping this in mind, there still is something: * OpenTheory (http://www.gilith.com/opentheory/) provides some kind of lingua franca between systems of the HOL family, that…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1412.8091/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.LOhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18517693urn:hackerpapers:mention:1412.8091:18517693Fri, 23 Nov 2018 17:20:59 GMT<p>There has been some work to translate between systems. For example, see &quot;Conversion of HOL Light proofs into Metamath&quot; by Mario Carneiro, 2014: https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.8091 However, it turns out to be non-trivial, so it is not typically done in practice. Formalization requires very precise specification, and even slight differences can cause complications. But like many other things, who knows, perhaps there will be further progress in this area.</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1412.8091/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.LO