Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
S
stdpp
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package Registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Terraform modules
Monitor
Incidents
Service Desk
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Terms and privacy
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Arthur Azevedo de Amorim
stdpp
Commits
26088f98
Commit
26088f98
authored
6 years ago
by
Robbert Krebbers
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
More documentation for solve_proper_prepare + introduce more.
parent
8d3d0713
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
Tags containing commit
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
theories/tactics.v
+12
-1
12 additions, 1 deletion
theories/tactics.v
with
12 additions
and
1 deletion
theories/tactics.v
+
12
−
1
View file @
26088f98
...
...
@@ -347,7 +347,18 @@ Ltac solve_proper_prepare :=
|
|
-
Proper
_
_
=>
intros
???
|
|
-
(_
==>
_)
%
signature
_
_
=>
intros
???
|
|
-
pointwise_relation
_
_
_
_
=>
intros
?
|
|
-
?R
?f
_
=>
let
f'
:=
constr
:(
λ
x
,
f
x
)
in
intros
?
|
|
-
?R
?f
_
=>
(* Deal with other cases where we have an equivalence relation on functions
(e.g. a [pointwise_relation] that is hidden in some form in [R]). We do
this by checking if the arguments of the relation are actually functions,
and then forcefully introduce one ∀ and introduce the remaining ∀s that
show up in the goal. To check that we actually have an equivalence relation
on functions, we try to eta expand [f], which will only succeed if [f] is
actually a function. *)
let
f'
:=
constr
:(
λ
x
y
,
f
x
y
)
in
(* Now forcefully introduce the first ∀ and other ∀s that show up in the
goal afterwards. *)
intros
?;
intros
end
;
simplify_eq
;
(* We try with and without unfolding. We have to backtrack on
that because unfolding may succeed, but then the proof may fail. *)
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment