coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- 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.
- [Coq-Club] Complexity of proof terms generated by the inversion tactic, Robin Green
- Re: [Coq-Club] Complexity of proof terms generated by the inversion tactic, Adam Chlipala
- Re: [Coq-Club] Complexity of proof terms generated by the inversion tactic, Conor McBride
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.