coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Pierre Corbineau <Pierre.Corbineau AT imag.fr>
- To: Adam Chlipala <adam AT chlipala.net>
- Cc: Pierre-Marie P�drot <pierremarie.pedrot AT ens-lyon.fr>, coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:51:23 +0100
- Mailscanner-null-check: 1270226851.26078@1wRgJ1oY0oCSo9X2rLhB3Q
- Organization: Verimag
More specifically, Thomas Steicher exhibited models of Type Theory where there are non standard closed proofs of (A = A). In these models, pf might be one of those non-standard proofs (i.e. semantically distinct from (refl_equal A)). Since Type (the type of A) is not decidable, you're out of luck without Streicher's K axiom (or its equivalent in Coq).
On a more speculative side, I am working on adding the K axiom to Coq's Type system by relaxing some typing constraints, but I cannot give you any date for completion.
Pierre
Adam Chlipala a écrit :
Pierre-Marie Pédrot wrote:
I am currently facing a somewhat simple problem which is very close to
one example that can be found in Adam's book :
Lemma tricky : forall (A : Type) (X : A) (pf : A = A), X = match pf in
(_ = A) return A with refl_equal => X end.
[...]
Any clues (axiom-free, of course) ?
It seems likely that you can't prove this without an axiom. Note that your theorem is _very_ close to the [Eqdep] module's axiom:
http://coq.inria.fr/stdlib/Coq.Logic.Eqdep.html
If you unfold the definition of [eq_rect] there, the statement is almost your [tricky] lemma. The only generalization is allowing any [return] clause, not just [return A].
Whoever thought hard about metatheory here concluded that [eq_rect_eq] isn't provable. Maybe your specialization of it _is_ provable, but I'm not aware of a proof.
--
Pierre Corbineau |
Pierre.Corbineau AT imag.fr
VERIMAG - Centre Équation | Tel: (+33 / 0) 4 56 52 04 42
2, avenue de Vignate | Office nr B7
38610 GIÈRES - FRANCE | http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~corbinea/
begin:vcard fn:Pierre Corbineau n:Corbineau;Pierre org;quoted-printable:Universit=C3=A9 Joseph Fourier - Grenoble 1;Laboratoire VERIMAG - Polytech' Grenoble adr;quoted-printable;quoted-printable:2, avenue de Vignate;;VERIMAG - Centre =C3=89QUATION ;GI=C3=88RES ;;38610;France email;internet:Pierre.Corbineau AT imag.fr title;quoted-printable:Ma=C3=AEtre de Conf=C3=A9rences tel;work:+33 (0) 4 56 52 04 42 tel;fax:+33 (0) 4 56 52 03 44 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~corbinea version:2.1 end:vcard
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
- RE: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs, (continued)
- RE: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs, Georges Gonthier
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs,
Chantal Keller
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs,
Thomas Braibant
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs,
Chantal Keller
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs, Thomas Braibant
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs,
Stéphane Lescuyer
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs, Pierre Letouzey
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs, Chantal Keller
- [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question,
Pierre-Marie Pédrot
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question,
Adam Chlipala
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question, Pierre Corbineau
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question, Pierre-Marie Pédrot
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question, Michael Shulman
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question, Hugo Herbelin
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question, Michael Shulman
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question, Hugo Herbelin
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question, Pierre Corbineau
- Re: [Coq-Club] Yet another dependent type question,
Adam Chlipala
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs,
Chantal Keller
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite sets in proofs,
Thomas Braibant
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.