Skip to content


Subversion checkout URL

You can clone with HTTPS or Subversion.

Download ZIP


Overkill in the proof of Lemma 6.4.2 #640

marcbezem opened this Issue · 2 comments

2 participants

Marc Bezem Mike Shulman
Marc Bezem

In the last para of the proof of Lemma 6.4.2, I'd suggest to replace the appeal to function extensionality by: By contraposition of happly (2.9.2), it suffices for ... to show that ...

(Feel free to ignore this issue if it is deemed too minor.)


Mike Shulman

Actually, I'm not sure "overkill" is the right word; funext is literally going the wrong way for what we need here.

Marc Bezem

Yes. But "function extensionality" postulates "happly is an equivalence", so with some good will one could take it to refer to happly. Dissecting the "good will", if you say P(a) for a type family P over A, you imply a:A. It is better to state this directly, if a:A is all that is needed.
Anyway, thanks for the fast response (that I see did come already)!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.