Skip to content
Projects
Groups
Snippets
Help
Loading...
Help
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in
Toggle navigation
C
cpdt
Project
Project
Details
Activity
Cycle Analytics
Repository
Repository
Files
Commits
Branches
Tags
Contributors
Graph
Compare
Charts
Issues
0
Issues
0
List
Board
Labels
Milestones
Merge Requests
0
Merge Requests
0
CI / CD
CI / CD
Pipelines
Jobs
Schedules
Charts
Wiki
Wiki
Snippets
Snippets
Members
Members
Collapse sidebar
Close sidebar
Activity
Graph
Charts
Create a new issue
Jobs
Commits
Issue Boards
Open sidebar
research
cpdt
Commits
c18ac1c4
Commit
c18ac1c4
authored
Sep 10, 2008
by
Adam Chlipala
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Little fixes
parent
0f3a52f9
Changes
1
Show whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
1 addition
and
1 deletion
+1
-1
InductiveTypes.v
src/InductiveTypes.v
+1
-1
No files found.
src/InductiveTypes.v
View file @
c18ac1c4
...
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Theorem the_sky_is_falling : forall x : Empty_set, 2 + 2 = 5.
...
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ Theorem the_sky_is_falling : forall x : Empty_set, 2 + 2 = 5.
destruct
1.
destruct
1.
Qed
.
Qed
.
(
**
Because
[
Empty_set
]
has
no
elements
,
the
fact
of
having
an
element
of
this
type
implies
anything
.
We
use
[
destruct
1
]
instead
of
[
destruct
x
]
in
the
proof
because
unused
quantified
variables
are
relegated
to
being
referred
to
by
number
.
(
There
is
a
good
reason
for
this
,
related
to
the
unity
of
quantifiers
and
dependent
function
types
.
)
(
**
Because
[
Empty_set
]
has
no
elements
,
the
fact
of
having
an
element
of
this
type
implies
anything
.
We
use
[
destruct
1
]
instead
of
[
destruct
x
]
in
the
proof
because
unused
quantified
variables
are
relegated
to
being
referred
to
by
number
.
(
There
is
a
good
reason
for
this
,
related
to
the
unity
of
quantifiers
and
implication
.
An
implication
is
just
a
quantification
over
a
proof
,
where
the
quantified
variable
is
never
used
.
It
generally
makes
more
sense
to
refer
to
implication
hypotheses
by
number
than
by
name
,
and
Coq
treats
our
quantifier
over
an
unused
variable
as
an
implication
in
determining
the
proper
behavior
.
)
We
can
see
the
induction
principle
that
made
this
proof
so
easy
:
*
)
We
can
see
the
induction
principle
that
made
this
proof
so
easy
:
*
)
...
...
Write
Preview
Markdown
is supported
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment