coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Jake Ehrlich <jake.h.ehrlich AT gmail.com>
- To: coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: [Coq-Club] Clarification on Prod rule for typing
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 20:22:24 +0000
- Authentication-results: mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=jake.h.ehrlich AT gmail.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=jake.h.ehrlich AT gmail.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT mail-ob0-f172.google.com
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23:5JuP0BF3c5yyvAKlAjMn2Z1GYnF86YWxBRYc798ds5kLTJ75pMiwAkXT6L1XgUPTWs2DsrQf27aQ6/iocFdDyKjCmUhKSIZLWR4BhJdetC0bK+nBN3fGKuX3ZTcxBsVIWQwt1Xi6NU9IBJS2PAWK8TWM5DIfUi/yKRBybrysXNWC04Lvj6ibwN76XUZhvHKFe7R8LRG7/036l/I9ps9cEJs30QbDuXBSeu5blitCLFOXmAvgtI/rpMYwu3cYh/V0/MlZFK7+Yq4QTLpCDT1gPXpmytfssEzhRAiCrlYcSGEXmRoAVwrM7xy8XtH8sjH+t+F98CafNMzyC7szXGLxvO9QVBb0hXJfZHYC+2bNh5kogQ==
HI guys,
The Prod rule seems to odd to me however. Consider type checking the term "nat -> Prop". This should clearly be of type "Type" and indeed coqtop tells me this is the case. However the 3rd Prod rule (The one dealing with Type) seems to suggest that "Prop" should have type "Type" and that "nat" should have type "Type" as well. Prop does have type "Type" but "nat" has type "Set"! That seems to mean that "nat -> Prop" should not be well defined! Of course "nat -> Prop" is well defined so either I am reading the rule wrong or the rule it self on that page is wrong but I am unsure as to which is the case. More than likely I am just reading it wrong but what exactly am I reading incorrectly here? How should I be reading this rule?
Thanks,
I'm an undergraduate from K-State trying to understand the typing rules for Coq/Gallina and found these rules online: https://coq.inria.fr/refman/Reference-Manual006.html#sec170
The Prod rule seems to odd to me however. Consider type checking the term "nat -> Prop". This should clearly be of type "Type" and indeed coqtop tells me this is the case. However the 3rd Prod rule (The one dealing with Type) seems to suggest that "Prop" should have type "Type" and that "nat" should have type "Type" as well. Prop does have type "Type" but "nat" has type "Set"! That seems to mean that "nat -> Prop" should not be well defined! Of course "nat -> Prop" is well defined so either I am reading the rule wrong or the rule it self on that page is wrong but I am unsure as to which is the case. More than likely I am just reading it wrong but what exactly am I reading incorrectly here? How should I be reading this rule?
Thanks,
Jake Ehrlich
- [Coq-Club] Clarification on Prod rule for typing, Jake Ehrlich, 09/01/2015
- Re: [Coq-Club] Clarification on Prod rule for typing, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, 09/01/2015
- Re: [Coq-Club] Clarification on Prod rule for typing, Ali Assaf, 09/01/2015
- Re: [Coq-Club] Clarification on Prod rule for typing, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, 09/01/2015
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.