coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: "Roland Zumkeller" <Roland.Zumkeller AT polytechnique.fr>
- To: coq-club AT pauillac.inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club]Newbie Questions
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 17:01:08 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=HOZVIMCXauiUZOBe0U24crrcTdd8phkAaX1O/W+N0aFbiK3VaDcQKPzb0VzR5SOFM1eBNlcBkKMKGX9zB4qGQaULX/ByHRFzwpfVF1I5r4xwPf/rMZ5rOzCOHIrTA1antwFWzE1dl99cJp+2215eFj7u7j+EsuMBTKUYKrsSnyc=
- List-archive: <http://pauillac.inria.fr/pipermail/coq-club/>
On 23/11/06, Haoyang Wang <hywang AT pobox.com> wrote:
On 11/23/06, Klaus Ostermann <ostermann AT informatik.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote:
> 1) What is the technical difference between Prop and Set? The tutorial and
> the book contain a few paragraphs that look like "philosophical" differences
> (e.g., regarding proof irrelevance), but is there also a technical
> difference? I.e., a situation where I can only use Prop but not Set or vice
> versa.
Prop is impredicative, while Set is predicative (stratified). That is,
(forall x:Prop, P x) is itself still a Prop, while (forall x:Set, P x)
belongs to a different Type universe.
Proof Irrelevance does have a technical (rather than philosophical)
meaning. It means any two proofs of the same Prop type are equal. That
is, forall (P:Prop) (x y:P), x = y.
It should be added that inductives (with more than one constructor) of sort Prop cannot be eliminated while constructing objects of type Set. This corresponds to the intuition that Set is for computation, while Prop is for reasoning.
Roland
--
http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~zumkeller/
- [Coq-Club]Newbie Questions, Klaus Ostermann
- Re: [Coq-Club]Newbie Questions, Eric Jaeger
- Re: [Coq-Club]Newbie Questions,
Haoyang Wang
- Re: [Coq-Club]Newbie Questions, Roland Zumkeller
- Re: [Coq-Club]Newbie Questions, Yevgeniy Makarov
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.