Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Complexity of proof terms generated by the inversion tactic

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Complexity of proof terms generated by the inversion tactic


chronological Thread 
  • From: Adam Chlipala <adamc AT hcoop.net>
  • To: Robin Green <greenrd AT greenrd.org>
  • Cc: coq-club AT pauillac.inria.fr
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Complexity of proof terms generated by the inversion tactic
  • Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:37:46 -0400
  • List-archive: <http://pauillac.inria.fr/pipermail/coq-club/>

Robin Green wrote:
Is there any way, apart from using the simple inversion tactic, to make
the proof terms less complicated for a proof involving inversion? Or at
least, in some sense easier to work with in a subsequent proof
involving that definition?

My advice is never to reason after-the-fact about terms built with tactics. If you really need after-the-fact reasoning, implement the inversion lemma yourself with a literal proof term.





Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page