<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Classical Proofs as Parallel Programs · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.03094/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.03094/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Classical Proofs as Parallel Programs — mentioned by outlace</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23215599</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1809.03094:23215599</guid><pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2020 21:22:04 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;There are a number of different type theory models for classical logic. The first to my knowledge was a model that uses the call-with-current-continuation (call/cc) control flow operator. While this does model classical logic, some say it is not particularly useful as a practical programming construct, which is perhaps why it does not seem to be adopted by any major proof assistant. More recently I&amp;#x27;ve seen a few papers showing that type theoretic models of concurrency can also model classical logic, e.g. see &amp;quot;Classical Proofs as Parallel Programs&amp;quot; &amp;lt; https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03094 &amp;gt;. The…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.03094/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
