-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
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
function symbols without implementation? #12
Comments
a work-around is to write a definition
cf. https://gitlab.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/waldmann/cyp/commit/88d20eb6cbab06e681bf24339426b845e65893f4 |
since #22 , we could write
but I am thinking now that we should not, because by transitivity, we can prove https://gitlab.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/waldmann/cyp/commit/59eb3371a844eaf1e0fd160e0475bda9b9dc3f7c |
We can treat |
Or, some built-in magic: undefined can be used, but it has no "def undefined" rule (or no declaration at all). I think the ultimate solution is to allow identifiers without implementation (but with type declaration). Then we don't need |
I'll take a stab. |
Turns out that this is already implemented and you can write
I forgot that we had this. See 7cb8e90 for the updated bintree test case. |
(request for discussion of feature)
It seems an identifier can only be used in axioms and goals if it has a definition (that is, equations).
I would love to be able to have exercises "prove this about f, using only that axioms" - where f's implementation is not given.
Of course, f's type should be declared (see issue #10) but I could also imagine
f = undefined
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: