Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

coq-club - Re: [Coq-Club] Where is the set theory?

coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Where is the set theory?


chronological Thread 
  • From: Daniel Schepler <dschepler AT gmail.com>
  • To: Victor Porton <porton AT narod.ru>
  • Cc: Andrej Bauer <andrej.bauer AT andrej.com>, Coq <coq-club AT inria.fr>
  • Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Where is the set theory?
  • Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:25:06 -0700

2011/11/3 Victor Porton <porton AT narod.ru>
But what if I want to write "supremum S == supremum T"? (to add more complexity, the first and the second supremum may be taken on different sets.)

How to write it in terms of "supremum S x" and "has_supremum"?
 
exists x, is_supremum S x /\ is_supremum T x.

Or, if you don't care about computability, prove the uniqueness of suprema, and then use constructive_definite_description (from the Description module) to build a function

supremum : forall S:Ensemble X, has_supremum S -> { x | is_supremum S x }.
--
Daniel Schepler




Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page