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
c3e260da
Commit
c3e260da
authored
Feb 02, 2014
by
Adam Chlipala
Browse files
Options
Browse Files
Download
Email Patches
Plain Diff
Fix HTML formatting bug
parent
58d3d4c3
Changes
1
Show whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
with
1 addition
and
1 deletion
+1
-1
GeneralRec.v
src/GeneralRec.v
+1
-1
No files found.
src/GeneralRec.v
View file @
c3e260da
...
@@ -940,6 +940,6 @@ Theorem test_map : run (map (fun x => Return (S x)) (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil))
...
@@ -940,6 +940,6 @@ Theorem test_map : run (map (fun x => Return (S x)) (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil))
exists
1
;
reflexivity
.
exists
1
;
reflexivity
.
Qed
.
Qed
.
(
**
One
further
disadvantage
of
[
comp
]
is
that
we
cannot
prove
an
inversion
lemma
for
executions
of
[
Bind
]
without
appealing
to
an
%
\
emph
{
axiom
}%
,
a
logical
complication
that
we
discuss
at
more
length
in
Chapter
12.
The
other
three
techniques
allow
proof
of
all
the
important
theorems
within
the
normal
logic
of
Coq
.
(
**
One
further
disadvantage
of
[
comp
]
is
that
we
cannot
prove
an
inversion
lemma
for
executions
of
[
Bind
]
without
appealing
to
an
_
axiom_
,
a
logical
complication
that
we
discuss
at
more
length
in
Chapter
12.
The
other
three
techniques
allow
proof
of
all
the
important
theorems
within
the
normal
logic
of
Coq
.
Perhaps
one
theme
of
our
comparison
is
that
one
must
trade
off
between
,
on
one
hand
,
functional
programming
expressiveness
and
compatibility
with
normal
Coq
types
and
computation
;
and
,
on
the
other
hand
,
the
level
of
proof
obligations
one
is
willing
to
handle
at
function
definition
time
.
*
)
Perhaps
one
theme
of
our
comparison
is
that
one
must
trade
off
between
,
on
one
hand
,
functional
programming
expressiveness
and
compatibility
with
normal
Coq
types
and
computation
;
and
,
on
the
other
hand
,
the
level
of
proof
obligations
one
is
willing
to
handle
at
function
definition
time
.
*
)
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