coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: t x <txrev319 AT gmail.com>
- To: coq-club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
- Subject: [Coq-Club] matching on proofs?
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:26:55 +0000
Hi,
The example is a bit silly -- but it comes from a legitimate source, studying "Lemma fmiddle_middle" of DepList.v of lambda tamer. (Though I might introduced errors.)
Here are things I am confused on:
(1) Why does "Fixpoint silly" even get accepted? Why is it that all objects of type H can match against "eq_refl" ?
[ this seems like black magic to me ]
(2) Why does the "destruct (lem_000 n)" line of lem_002 work? "Print lem_000." is a big complicated _expression_. I don't see why it should match against eq_refl.
[ this also seems like black magic to me ]
(3) Is lemma_003 even provable in Coq? And if so, how do I prove it in Coq?
[ I'm divided on this. On one hand, it shouldn't be true since not all proofs necessarily have to be equal to eq_refl. On the other hand, given (1), apparently all proofs are eq_refl, so it's therefore trivially true. ]
(4) What section of what manual should I read up on clear up these knowledge gaps?
Thanks!
Thanks!
- [Coq-Club] matching on proofs?, t x, 08/16/2013
- [Coq-Club] Re: matching on proofs?, t x, 08/16/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] matching on proofs?, Daniel Schepler, 08/16/2013
- Re: [Coq-Club] matching on proofs?, t x, 08/16/2013
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.