Sun, 29 May 2011 19:40:56 +0200 always check plain "metis" even if the ATP proof seems to require "metisFT" -- maybe the proof is needlessly complicated
blanchet [Sun, 29 May 2011 19:40:56 +0200] rev 43044
always check plain "metis" even if the ATP proof seems to require "metisFT" -- maybe the proof is needlessly complicated
(0) -30000 -10000 -3000 -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -1 +1 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 +3000 +10000 +30000 tip