coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
- From: Xavier Leroy <xavier.leroy AT college-de-france.fr>
- To: coq-club AT inria.fr
- Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:29:03 +0100
- Authentication-results: mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr; spf=None smtp.pra=xavier.leroy AT college-de-france.fr; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=xavier.leroy AT college-de-france.fr; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster AT smtpout20.partage.renater.fr
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:37 PM Gaëtan Gilbert <gaetan.gilbert AT skyskimmer.net> wrote:
> To have a good notion of equality over type "unsigned" above, it's
> better to define it this way:
>
> Definition unsigned (max:Z) : Set :=
> { x : Z | -1 < x /\ x < max}.
>
> so that proofs of the proposition "-1 < x /\ x < max" are unique.
Isn't that also true with "x >= 0 /\ x < max"?
Sadly, no. "x >= 0" is defined as "Z.compare x 0 <> Lt", i.e. the negation of "Z.compare x 0 = Lt". Proofs of a negation ~P are functions, so you cannot show that there is only one proof of ~P, even if there is only one proof of P. Unless you assume function extensionality, of course.
So, "-1 < x", which expands to "Z.compare (-1) x = Lt", has unique proofs, but "0 <= x" or "x >= 0" does not...
With my thanks to Robbert Krebbers, who pointed out all this to me a while ago,
- Xavier Leroy
Gaëtan Gilbert
On 19/03/2019 16:54, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:36 AM Alix Trieu <alix.trieu AT cs.au.dk
> <mailto:alix.trieu AT cs.au.dk>> wrote:
>
> CompCert provides a formalization of machine integers you might be
> interested to look at:
> https://github.com/AbsInt/CompCert/blob/master/lib/Integers.v
>
>
> Actually, this formalization follows the same approach proposed by the
> original poster, using a subset of Z:
>
> Definition unsigned (max:Z) : Set :=
> { x : Z | x >= 0 /\ x < max}.
> Definition unsigned_8 := unsigned (2^8).
>
> A nice property of this approach is that it computes relatively
> efficiently (like type Z) while the Fin.t type does not (like type nat).
>
> To have a good notion of equality over type "unsigned" above, it's
> better to define it this way:
>
> Definition unsigned (max:Z) : Set :=
> { x : Z | -1 < x /\ x < max}.
>
> so that proofs of the proposition "-1 < x /\ x < max" are unique.
>
> Have fun,
>
> - Xavier Leroy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Mar 2019, at 15:10, fritjof AT uni-bremen.de
> <mailto:fritjof AT uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to create a finite data type, like *Unsinged 8*,
> > which containes values from 0 to 2^8 -1.
> > I came up with an idea like:
> >
> > Definition unsigned (max:Z) : Set :=
> > { x : Z | x >= 0 /\ x < max}.
> >
> > Definition unsigned_8 := unsigned (2^8).
> >
> > But I'm not sure, if this is the right way.
> >
> > Does someone know if there is a better way to define
> > finite types?
> >
> > --f.
> >
>
- [Coq-Club] finite data types, fritjof, 03/18/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Mario Alvarez Picallo, 03/18/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Jan Bessai, 03/18/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Maximilian Wuttke, 03/18/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Gregory Malecha, 03/19/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Alix Trieu, 03/19/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Xavier Leroy, 03/19/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Gaëtan Gilbert, 03/19/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Xavier Leroy, 03/19/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Fritjof Bornebusch, 03/20/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias, 03/20/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Xavier Leroy, 03/19/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Gaëtan Gilbert, 03/19/2019
- Re: [Coq-Club] finite data types, Xavier Leroy, 03/19/2019
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.