coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Robert Helgesson <robert AT rycee.net>
- To: coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:50:48 +0200
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:user-agent; b=kxcS4EnWq+sdHePTO+wOZ4fX/4MaEfi0TvqyWHdkMrYtUQbAuDdMUa+aWMSVrqxmIe /oNPfZaeQKMNNY23J5Au6tu3xH9apM2gQKv9J8sgUN2zD4EY02VeO8j22GQ3bAm35jzD wDViNbViV/v4z8ooNn6vDGNZaw1O7dTz5otr0=
Hello,
I'm just starting to learn Coq and have been playing around a bit with
setoids. It's been challenging for sure but with a bit of effort and
reading I've been able to figure out the problems I've run into.
However, now I've encountered an interesting thing which, while it
doesn't seem very tricky, I can't figure out!
Ok, so it's easily possible to prove
Lemma sym_sym_eq : forall (A : Type) (x y : A) (H : x = y),
symmetry (symmetry H) = H.
But I haven't been able to figure out how to prove something like
Lemma sym_sym_equiv : forall (A : Type) (S : Setoid A) (x y : A)
(H : x == y), symmetry (symmetry H) = H.
Is it at all possible to prove this general case and if so, how? If
it's not possible then I would appreciate a short description why.
Many thanks.
/Robert
- [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry, Robert Helgesson
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry,
roconnor
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry,
Robert Helgesson
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry,
roconnor
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry, Robert Helgesson
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry,
roconnor
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry,
Robert Helgesson
- Re: [Coq-Club] Setoids and symmetry,
roconnor
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.