coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

RE: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof

From: "Soegtrop, Michael" <michael.soegtrop AT intel.com>
To: "coq-club AT inria.fr" <coq-club AT inria.fr>
Subject: RE: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:02:49 +0000
Accept-language: de-DE, en-US
Authentication-results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=michael.soegtrop AT intel.com; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=michael.soegtrop AT intel.com; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT mga11.intel.com
Dlp-product: dlpe-windows
Dlp-reaction: no-action
Dlp-version: 11.0.400.15
Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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

Dear Pierre,

> I think it is pointless to try to be consistent in presence of nested proofs if

> everyone agrees that it cannot remain in a finished proof (like admit).

I would put it slightly differently. As I explained I sometimes do keep lemmas nested or at least keep my proves such that I can move the lemma back for the purpose of explaining why one needs a lemma with a rather bizarre statement.

The point is that most people are using nested lemmas together with fancy automation, and an automation system which cannot handle the semantic differences which have been discussed in this thread is simply useless for practical purposes. So the conclusion is the same.

Best regards,

Michael

Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928

Re: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof, (continued)
- Re: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof, Laurent Thery, 01/22/2019
  - Re: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof, Jan Bessai, 01/22/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof, Gaëtan Gilbert, 01/23/2019
  - Re: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof, Pierre Courtieu, 01/23/2019
    - Re: [Coq-Club] proving a lemma in a proof, Adam Chlipala, 01/23/2019