We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Axiom T : Prop. Axiom eq : forall {A}, A -> A -> Prop. Axiom REFL : forall {a} (t : a), eq t t. Axiom MK_COMB : forall {a b} {s t : a -> b} {u v : a}, eq s t -> eq u v -> eq (s u) (t v). Definition type0 := Prop -> Prop. Definition type1 := Prop -> Prop -> Prop. Definition term1 (x0 : Prop) := @eq Prop x0. Definition term2 := @eq Prop T. Definition thm_4 (t : Prop) (h1 : @eq Prop t T) : @eq Prop t T := h1. Definition thm_6 : @eq type1 (@eq Prop) (@eq Prop) := REFL (@eq Prop). Definition thm_7a (t : Prop) (h1 : @eq Prop t T) : @eq type0 (term1 t) term2 := MK_COMB thm_6 (@thm_4 t h1). Definition thm_7b (t : Prop) (h1 : @eq Prop t T) : @eq type0 (term1 t) term2 := MK_COMB (@thm_6) (@thm_4 t h1). Definition thm_7c (t : Prop) (h1 : @eq Prop t T) : @eq type0 (term1 t) term2 := MK_COMB @thm_6 (@thm_4 t h1). (*Error: Syntax error: '.' expected after [gallina] (in [vernac_aux]).*)
8.16.1
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I guess that's just how the parsing levels turn out? I don't know if we can change it, especially if there are any users of @ as an infix.
@
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
Description of the problem
Coq Version
8.16.1
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: