instance fixed

[helm.git] / helm / software / matita / nlibrary / topology / igft.ma

diff --git a/helm/software/matita/nlibrary/topology/igft.ma b/helm/software/matita/nlibrary/topology/igft.ma
index dcc7e9a81a86a15834228419c50ffdf9bf2b837b..d6043fba2c1d413fc22626fd567e18dbc34c5779 100644 (file)
--- a/helm/software/matita/nlibrary/topology/igft.ma
+++ b/helm/software/matita/nlibrary/topology/igft.ma
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ is a peculiarity of Matita (for example in CIC as implemented by Coq they are th
 same). The additional restriction of not allowing the elimination of a CProp
 toward a Type makes the theory of Matita minimal in the following sense: 
 
-<object class="img" data="igft-minimality-CIC.svg" type="image/svg+xml" width="500px"/>
+<object class="img" data="igft-minimality-CIC.svg" type="image/svg+xml" width="600px"/>
 
 Theorems proved in CIC as implemented in Matita can be reused in a classical 
 and impredicative framework (i.e. forcing Matita to collapse the hierarchy of 
@@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ reaching the end of the formalization, but we had to assume the proof
 of the extensionality of the `U_x` construction (while there is no
 need to assume the same property for `F_x`!). 
 
-The current version of the formaliztion uses `Id`. 
+The current version of the formalization uses `Id`. 
 
 The standard library and the `include` command
 ----------------------------------------------
@@ -923,11 +923,11 @@ Thus the statement `Im[d(a,i)] ⊆ V` unfolds to
 
 That, up to rewriting with the equation defining `x`, is what we mean.
 Since we decided to use `Id` the rewriting always work (the elimination
-prnciple for `Id` is Leibnitz's equality, that is quantified over
+principle for `Id` is Leibnitz's equality, that is quantified over
 the context. 
 
 The problem that arises if we decide to make `S` a setoid is that 
-`V` has to be extensional w.r.t. the equality of `S` (i.e. the charactestic
+`V` has to be extensional w.r.t. the equality of `S` (i.e. the characteristic
 functional proposition has to quotient its input with a relation bigger
 than the one of `S`.
 
@@ -1013,7 +1013,7 @@ there is still some work to do.
 D[retr-3]
 To use the equation defining `b` we have to eliminate `H`. Unfolding
 definitions in `x` tell us there is still something to do. The `nrewrite`
-tactic is a shorcut for the elimination principle of the equlity.
+tactic is a shortcut for the elimination principle of the equality.
 It accepts an additional argument `<` or `>` to rewrite left-to-right
 or right-to-left. 
 
@@ -1168,15 +1168,7 @@ We now proceed with the proof of the infinity rule.
 
 D*)
 
-
-alias symbol "exists" (instance 1) = "exists".
-alias symbol "covers" = "new covers set".
-alias symbol "covers" = "new covers".
-alias symbol "covers" = "new covers set".
-alias symbol "covers" = "new covers".
-alias symbol "covers" = "new covers set".
-alias symbol "covers" = "new covers".
-alias symbol "covers" = "new covers set".
+alias symbol "covers" (instance 3) = "new covers set".
 ntheorem new_coverage_infinity:
   ∀A:nAx.∀U:Ω^A.∀a:A. (∃i:𝐈 a. 𝐈𝐦[𝐝 a i] ◃ U) → a ◃ U.
 #A; #U; #a;                                   (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-1". *)