Ok, so we're talking about using an already existent proof engine like Coq rather than trying to build one from scratch. Are you still interested in improving the other bits of the logic module? I would still like to work on things like multivalued and/or modal logics.
On Mar 24, 5:18 pm, Christian Muise <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually in this context I was using "wrap" to refer to an interface that > would call an already existing solver (SAT solver or theorem prover). > > On Saturday, March 24, 2012, Sergiu Ivanov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Cullen Seaton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> You'll have to forgive me, I'm still a bit of novice programmer (an > >> enthusiastic novice), but can someone briefly explain what you all > >> mean by "wrapping"? > > >> On Mar 23, 1:40 pm, Joachim Durchholz <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Am 23.03.2012 17:04, schrieb Christian Muise: > > >>> > Aye, wrapping should be an obvious target (you could start by > wrapping a > >>> > SAT solver to replace the prototype implementation currently in > there). > > > As I read it in this context, "to wrap" means to create a set of SymPy > > classes/functions which will redirect any request to compute something > > to the already existing SAT solver. > > > Sergiu > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sympy" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected].> For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
