--- a/src/CTT/ex/Synthesis.thy Mon Jun 05 19:54:12 2006 +0200
+++ b/src/CTT/ex/Synthesis.thy Mon Jun 05 21:54:20 2006 +0200
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
begin
text "discovery of predecessor function"
-lemma "?a : SUM pred:?A . Eq(N, pred`0, 0)
+lemma "?a : SUM pred:?A . Eq(N, pred`0, 0)
* (PROD n:N. Eq(N, pred ` succ(n), n))"
apply (tactic "intr_tac []")
apply (tactic eqintr_tac)
@@ -35,16 +35,16 @@
text "An interesting use of the eliminator, when"
(*The early implementation of unification caused non-rigid path in occur check
See following example.*)
-lemma "?a : PROD i:N. Eq(?A, ?b(inl(i)), <0 , i>)
+lemma "?a : PROD i:N. Eq(?A, ?b(inl(i)), <0 , i>)
* Eq(?A, ?b(inr(i)), <succ(0), i>)"
apply (tactic "intr_tac []")
apply (tactic eqintr_tac)
apply (rule comp_rls)
apply (tactic "rew_tac []")
-oops
+done
-(*Here we allow the type to depend on i.
- This prevents the cycle in the first unification (no longer needed).
+(*Here we allow the type to depend on i.
+ This prevents the cycle in the first unification (no longer needed).
Requires flex-flex to preserve the dependence.
Simpler still: make ?A into a constant type N*N.*)
lemma "?a : PROD i:N. Eq(?A(i), ?b(inl(i)), <0 , i>)
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
text "A tricky combination of when and split"
(*Now handled easily, but caused great problems once*)
lemma [folded basic_defs]:
- "?a : PROD i:N. PROD j:N. Eq(?A, ?b(inl(<i,j>)), i)
+ "?a : PROD i:N. PROD j:N. Eq(?A, ?b(inl(<i,j>)), i)
* Eq(?A, ?b(inr(<i,j>)), j)"
apply (tactic "intr_tac []")
apply (tactic eqintr_tac)
@@ -63,33 +63,33 @@
apply (rule_tac [7] reduction_rls)
apply (rule_tac [10] comp_rls)
apply (tactic "typechk_tac []")
-oops
+done
(*similar but allows the type to depend on i and j*)
-lemma "?a : PROD i:N. PROD j:N. Eq(?A(i,j), ?b(inl(<i,j>)), i)
+lemma "?a : PROD i:N. PROD j:N. Eq(?A(i,j), ?b(inl(<i,j>)), i)
* Eq(?A(i,j), ?b(inr(<i,j>)), j)"
oops
(*similar but specifying the type N simplifies the unification problems*)
-lemma "?a : PROD i:N. PROD j:N. Eq(N, ?b(inl(<i,j>)), i)
+lemma "?a : PROD i:N. PROD j:N. Eq(N, ?b(inl(<i,j>)), i)
* Eq(N, ?b(inr(<i,j>)), j)"
oops
text "Deriving the addition operator"
lemma [folded arith_defs]:
- "?c : PROD n:N. Eq(N, ?f(0,n), n)
+ "?c : PROD n:N. Eq(N, ?f(0,n), n)
* (PROD m:N. Eq(N, ?f(succ(m), n), succ(?f(m,n))))"
apply (tactic "intr_tac []")
apply (tactic eqintr_tac)
apply (rule comp_rls)
apply (tactic "rew_tac []")
-oops
+done
text "The addition function -- using explicit lambdas"
lemma [folded arith_defs]:
- "?c : SUM plus : ?A .
- PROD x:N. Eq(N, plus`0`x, x)
+ "?c : SUM plus : ?A .
+ PROD x:N. Eq(N, plus`0`x, x)
* (PROD y:N. Eq(N, plus`succ(y)`x, succ(plus`y`x)))"
apply (tactic "intr_tac []")
apply (tactic eqintr_tac)