-(* In this Chapter we shall develop a naif theory of sets represented as characteristic
-predicates over some universe \ 5code\ 6A\ 5/code\ 6, that is as objects of type A→Prop. *)
+(* In this Chapter we shall develop a naif theory of sets represented as
+characteristic predicates over some universe \ 5code\ 6A\ 5/code\ 6, that is as objects of type
+A→Prop. *)
-include "basics/logic.ma".
+include "basics/types.ma".
+include "basics/bool.ma".
(**** For instance the empty set is defined by the always function predicate *)
B \ 5a title="extensional equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 61 C → A \ 5a title="substraction" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6-\ 5/a\ 6 B \ 5a title="extensional equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 61 A \ 5a title="substraction" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6-\ 5/a\ 6 C.
#U #A #B #C #eqBC #a @\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/iff_and_l.def(2)"\ 6iff_and_l\ 5/a\ 6 /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 62\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/iff_not.def(4)"\ 6iff_not\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/ qed.
-(* We can now prove several properties of the previous set-theoretic
-operations. In particular, union is commutative and associative, and
-the empty set is an identity element: *)
+(* We can now prove several properties of the previous set-theoretic operations.
+In particular, union is commutative and associative, and the empty set is an
+identity element: *)
lemma union_empty_r: ∀U.∀A:U→Prop.
A \ 5a title="union" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∪\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a title="empty set" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∅\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a title="extensional equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 61 A.
#S #A #B #C #w % [* [* /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 63\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/Or.con(0,1,2)"\ 6or_introl\ 5/a\ 6, \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/Or.con(0,2,2)"\ 6or_intror\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/ | /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 63\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/Or.con(0,2,2)"\ 6or_intror\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/] | * [/\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 63\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/Or.con(0,1,2)"\ 6or_introl\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/ | * /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 63\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/Or.con(0,1,2)"\ 6or_introl\ 5/a\ 6, \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/Or.con(0,2,2)"\ 6or_intror\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/]
qed.
-(* In the same way we prove commutativity and associativity for set
+(* In the same way we prove commutativity and associativity for set
interesection *)
lemma cap_comm : ∀U.∀A,B:U →Prop.
A \ 5a title="intersection" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∩\ 5/a\ 6 A \ 5a title="extensional equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 61 A.
#U #A #a % [* // | /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 62\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/And.con(0,1,2)"\ 6conj\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/] qed.
-(* We conclude our examples with a couple of distributivity theorems,
-and a characterization of substraction in terms of interesection and
-complementation. *)
+(* We conclude our examples with a couple of distributivity theorems, and a
+characterization of substraction in terms of interesection and complementation. *)
lemma distribute_intersect : ∀U.∀A,B,C:U→Prop.
(A \ 5a title="union" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∪\ 5/a\ 6 B) \ 5a title="intersection" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∩\ 5/a\ 6 C \ 5a title="extensional equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 61 (A \ 5a title="intersection" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∩\ 5/a\ 6 C) \ 5a title="union" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∪\ 5/a\ 6 (B \ 5a title="intersection" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∩\ 5/a\ 6 C).
#U #A #B #w normalize /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 62\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/And.con(0,1,2)"\ 6conj\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/
qed.
-(****** DeqSet: a set with a decidbale equality ******)
+(* In several situation it is important to assume to have a decidable equality
+between elements of a set U, namely a boolean function eqb: U→U→bool such that
+for any pair of elements a and b in U, (eqb x y) is true if and only if x=y.
+A set equipped with such an equality is called a DeqSet: *)
record DeqSet : Type[1] ≝ { carr :> Type[0];
- eqb: carr → carr → bool;
- eqb_true: ∀x,y. (eqb x y = true) ↔ (x = y)
+ eqb: carr → carr → \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6bool\ 5/a\ 6;
+ eqb_true: ∀x,y. (eqb x y \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6) \ 5a title="iff" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6↔\ 5/a\ 6 (x \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 y)
}.
+(* We use the notation == to denote the decidable equality, to distinguish it
+from the propositional equality. In particular, a term of the form a==b is a
+boolean, while a=b is a proposition. *)
+
notation "a == b" non associative with precedence 45 for @{ 'eqb $a $b }.
interpretation "eqb" 'eqb a b = (eqb ? a b).
+(* It is convenient to have a simple way to reflect a proof of the fact
+that (eqb a b) is true into a proof of the proposition (a = b); to this aim,
+we introduce two operators "\P" and "\b". *)
+
notation "\P H" non associative with precedence 90
for @{(proj1 … (eqb_true ???) $H)}.
notation "\b H" non associative with precedence 90
for @{(proj2 … (eqb_true ???) $H)}.
-lemma eqb_false: ∀S:DeqSet.∀a,b:S.
- (eqb ? a b) = false ↔ a ≠ b.
+(* If H:eqb a b = true, then \P H: a = b, and conversely if h:a = b, then
+\b h: eqb a b = true. Let us see an example of their use: the following
+statement asserts that we can reflect a proof that eqb a b is false into
+a proof of the proposition a ≠ b. *)
+
+lemma eqb_false: ∀S:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6.∀a,b:S.
+ (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eqb.fix(0,0,3)"\ 6eqb\ 5/a\ 6 ? a b) \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,2,0)"\ 6false\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a title="iff" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6↔\ 5/a\ 6 a \ 5a title="leibnitz's non-equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6≠\ 5/a\ 6 b.
+
+(* We start the proof introducing the hypothesis, and then split the "if" and
+"only if" cases *)
+
#S #a #b % #H
- [@(not_to_not … not_eq_true_false) #H1 <H @sym_eq @(\b H1)
- |cases (true_or_false (eqb ? a b)) // #H1 @False_ind @(absurd … (\P H1) H)
+
+(* The latter is easily reduced to prove the goal true=false under the assumption
+H1: a = b *)
+ [@(\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/not_to_not.def(3)"\ 6not_to_not\ 5/a\ 6 … \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/not_eq_true_false.def(3)"\ 6not_eq_true_false\ 5/a\ 6) #H1
+
+(* since by assumption H false is equal to (a==b), by rewriting we obtain the goal
+true=(a==b) that is just the boolean version of H1 *)
+
+ <H @\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/sym_eq.def(2)"\ 6sym_eq\ 5/a\ 6 @(\b H1)
+
+(* In the "if" case, we proceed by cases over the boolean equality (a==b); if
+(a==b) is false, the goal is trivial; the other case is absurd, since if (a==b) is
+true, then by reflection a=b, while by hypothesis a≠b *)
+
+ |cases (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/true_or_false.def(1)"\ 6true_or_false\ 5/a\ 6 (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eqb.fix(0,0,3)"\ 6eqb\ 5/a\ 6 ? a b)) // #H1 @\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/False_ind.fix(0,1,1)"\ 6False_ind\ 5/a\ 6 @(\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/absurd.def(2)"\ 6absurd\ 5/a\ 6 … (\P H1) H)
]
qed.
+(* We also introduce two operators "\Pf" and "\bf" to reflect a proof
+of (a==b)=false into a proof of a≠b, and vice-versa *)
+
notation "\Pf H" non associative with precedence 90
for @{(proj1 … (eqb_false ???) $H)}.
notation "\bf H" non associative with precedence 90
for @{(proj2 … (eqb_false ???) $H)}.
-
-lemma dec_eq: ∀S:DeqSet.∀a,b:S. a = b ∨ a ≠ b.
-#S #a #b cases (true_or_false (eqb ? a b)) #H
+
+(* The following statement proves that propositional equality in a
+DeqSet is decidable in the traditional sense, namely either a=b or a≠b *)
+
+ lemma dec_eq: ∀S:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6.∀a,b:S. a \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 b \ 5a title="logical or" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∨\ 5/a\ 6 a \ 5a title="leibnitz's non-equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6≠\ 5/a\ 6 b.
+#S #a #b cases (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/true_or_false.def(1)"\ 6true_or_false\ 5/a\ 6 (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eqb.fix(0,0,3)"\ 6eqb\ 5/a\ 6 ? a b)) #H
[%1 @(\P H) | %2 @(\Pf H)]
qed.
+(* A simple example of a set with a decidable equality is bool. We first define
+the boolean equality beqb, that is just the xand function, then prove that
+beqb b1 b2 is true if and only if b1=b2, and finally build the type DeqBool by
+instantiating the DeqSet record with the previous information *)
+
definition beqb ≝ λb1,b2.
- match b1 with [ true ⇒ b2 | false ⇒ notb b2].
+ match b1 with [ true ⇒ b2 | false ⇒ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/notb.def(1)"\ 6notb\ 5/a\ 6 b2].
notation < "a == b" non associative with precedence 45 for @{beqb $a $b }.
-lemma beqb_true: ∀b1,b2. iff (beqb b1 b2 = true) (b1 = b2).
-#b1 #b2 cases b1 cases b2 normalize /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 62\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace conj\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/
+
+lemma beqb_true: ∀b1,b2. \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/iff.def(1)"\ 6iff\ 5/a\ 6 (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb.def(2)"\ 6beqb\ 5/a\ 6 b1 b2 \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6) (b1 \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 b2).
+#b1 #b2 cases b1 cases b2 normalize /\ 5span class="autotactic"\ 62\ 5span class="autotrace"\ 6 trace \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/And.con(0,1,2)"\ 6conj\ 5/a\ 6\ 5/span\ 6\ 5/span\ 6/
qed.
-definition DeqBool ≝ mk_DeqSet bool beqb beqb_true.
+definition DeqBool ≝ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.con(0,1,0)"\ 6mk_DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6bool\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb.def(2)"\ 6beqb\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb_true.def(4)"\ 6beqb_true\ 5/a\ 6.
+
+(* At this point, we would expect to be able to prove things like the
+following: for any boolean b, if b==false is true then b=false.
+Unfortunately, this would not work, unless we declare b of type
+DeqBool (change the type in the following statement and see what
+happens). *)
+
+example exhint: ∀b:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqBool.def(5)"\ 6DeqBool\ 5/a\ 6. (b\ 5a title="eqb" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6=\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,2,0)"\ 6false\ 5/a\ 6) \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6 → b\ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,2,0)"\ 6false\ 5/a\ 6.
+#b #H @(\P H)
+qed.
-unification hint 0 ≔ ;
- X ≟ mk_DeqSet bool beqb beqb_true
+(* The point is that == expects in input a pair of objects whose type must be the
+carrier of a DeqSet; bool is indeed the carrier of DeqBool, but the type inference
+system has no knowledge of it (it is an information that has been supplied by the
+user, and stored somewhere in the library). More explicitly, the type inference
+inference system, would face an unification problem consisting to unify bool
+against the carrier of something (a metavaribale) and it has no way to synthetize
+the answer. To solve this kind of situations, matita provides a mechanism to hint
+the system the expected solution. A unification hint is a kind of rule, whose rhd
+is the unification problem, containing some metavariables X1, ..., Xn, and whose
+left hand side is the solution suggested to the system, in the form of equations
+Xi=Mi. The hint is accepted by the system if and only the solution is correct, that
+is, if it is a unifier for the given problem.
+To make an example, in the previous case, the unification problem is bool = carr X,
+and the hint is to take X= mk_DeqSet bool beqb true. The hint is correct, since
+bool is convertible with (carr (mk_DeqSet bool beb true)). *)
+
+unification hint 0 \ 5a href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)" title="hint_decl_Type1"\ 6≔\ 5/a\ 6 ;
+ X ≟ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.con(0,1,0)"\ 6mk_DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6bool\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb.def(2)"\ 6beqb\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb_true.def(4)"\ 6beqb_true\ 5/a\ 6
(* ---------------------------------------- *) ⊢
- bool ≡ carr X.
+ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6bool\ 5/a\ 6 ≡ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/carr.fix(0,0,2)"\ 6carr\ 5/a\ 6 X.
-unification hint 0 ≔ b1,b2:bool;
- X ≟ mk_DeqSet bool beqb beqb_true
+unification hint 0 \ 5a href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)" title="hint_decl_Type0"\ 6≔\ 5/a\ 6 b1,b2:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6bool\ 5/a\ 6;
+ X ≟ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.con(0,1,0)"\ 6mk_DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6bool\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb.def(2)"\ 6beqb\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb_true.def(4)"\ 6beqb_true\ 5/a\ 6
(* ---------------------------------------- *) ⊢
- beqb b1 b2 ≡ eqb X b1 b2.
+ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/beqb.def(2)"\ 6beqb\ 5/a\ 6 b1 b2 ≡ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eqb.fix(0,0,3)"\ 6eqb\ 5/a\ 6 X b1 b2.
-example exhint: ∀b:bool. (b == false) = true → b = false.
-#b #H @(\P H).
+(* After having provided the previous hints, we may rewrite example exhint
+declaring b of type bool. *)
+
+example exhint1: ∀b:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6bool\ 5/a\ 6. (b \ 5a title="eqb" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6= \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,2,0)"\ 6false\ 5/a\ 6) \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6 → b \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,2,0)"\ 6false\ 5/a\ 6.
+#b #H @(\P H)
qed.
-(* pairs *)
+(* The cartesian product of two DeqSets is still a DeqSet. To prove
+this, we must as usual define the boolen equality function, and prove
+it correctly reflects propositional equality. *)
+
definition eq_pairs ≝
- λA,B:DeqSet.λp1,p2:A×B.(\fst p1 == \fst p2) ∧ (\snd p1 == \snd p2).
+ λA,B:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6.λp1,p2:A\ 5a title="Product" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6×\ 5/a\ 6B.(\ 5a title="pair pi1" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6\fst\ 5/a\ 6 p1 \ 5a title="eqb" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6= \ 5a title="pair pi1" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6\fst\ 5/a\ 6 p2) \ 5a title="boolean and" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6∧\ 5/a\ 6 (\ 5a title="pair pi2" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6\snd\ 5/a\ 6 p1 \ 5a title="eqb" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6= \ 5a title="pair pi2" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6\snd\ 5/a\ 6 p2).
-lemma eq_pairs_true: ∀A,B:DeqSet.∀p1,p2:A×B.
- eq_pairs A B p1 p2 = true ↔ p1 = p2.
+lemma eq_pairs_true: ∀A,B:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6.∀p1,p2:A\ 5a title="Product" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6×\ 5/a\ 6B.
+ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eq_pairs.def(4)"\ 6eq_pairs\ 5/a\ 6 A B p1 p2 \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a title="iff" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6↔\ 5/a\ 6 p1 \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 p2.
#A #B * #a1 #b1 * #a2 #b2 %
- [#H cases (andb_true …H) normalize #eqa #eqb >(\P eqa) >(\P eqb) //
- |#H destruct normalize >(\b (refl … a2)) >(\b (refl … b2)) //
+ [#H cases (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/andb_true.def(5)"\ 6andb_true\ 5/a\ 6 …H) normalize #eqa #eqb >(\P eqa) >(\P eqb) //
+ |#H destruct normalize >(\b (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/eq.con(0,1,2)"\ 6refl\ 5/a\ 6 … a2)) >(\b (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/logic/eq.con(0,1,2)"\ 6refl\ 5/a\ 6 … b2)) //
]
qed.
-definition DeqProd ≝ λA,B:DeqSet.
- mk_DeqSet (A×B) (eq_pairs A B) (eq_pairs_true A B).
-
-unification hint 0 ≔ C1,C2;
- T1 ≟ carr C1,
- T2 ≟ carr C2,
- X ≟ DeqProd C1 C2
+definition DeqProd ≝ λA,B:\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.ind(1,0,0)"\ 6DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6.
+ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqSet.con(0,1,0)"\ 6mk_DeqSet\ 5/a\ 6 (A\ 5a title="Product" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6×\ 5/a\ 6B) (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eq_pairs.def(4)"\ 6eq_pairs\ 5/a\ 6 A B) (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eq_pairs_true.def(6)"\ 6eq_pairs_true\ 5/a\ 6 A B).
+
+(* Having an unification problem of the kind T1×T2 = carr X, what kind
+of hint can we give to the system? We expect T1 to be the carrier of a
+DeqSet C1, T2 to be the carrier of a DeqSet C2, and X to be DeqProd C1 C2.
+This is expressed by the following hint: *)
+
+unification hint 0 \ 5a href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)" title="hint_decl_Type1"\ 6≔\ 5/a\ 6 C1,C2;
+ T1 ≟ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/carr.fix(0,0,2)"\ 6carr\ 5/a\ 6 C1,
+ T2 ≟ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/carr.fix(0,0,2)"\ 6carr\ 5/a\ 6 C2,
+ X ≟ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqProd.def(7)"\ 6DeqProd\ 5/a\ 6 C1 C2
(* ---------------------------------------- *) ⊢
- T1×T2 ≡ carr X.
+ T1\ 5a title="Product" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6×\ 5/a\ 6T2 ≡ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/carr.fix(0,0,2)"\ 6carr\ 5/a\ 6 X.
-unification hint 0 ≔ T1,T2,p1,p2;
- X ≟ DeqProd T1 T2
+unification hint 0 \ 5a href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)" title="hint_decl_Type0"\ 6≔\ 5/a\ 6 T1,T2,p1,p2;
+ X ≟ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/DeqProd.def(7)"\ 6DeqProd\ 5/a\ 6 T1 T2
(* ---------------------------------------- *) ⊢
- eq_pairs T1 T2 p1 p2 ≡ eqb X p1 p2.
+ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eq_pairs.def(4)"\ 6eq_pairs\ 5/a\ 6 T1 T2 p1 p2 ≡ \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter4/eqb.fix(0,0,3)"\ 6eqb\ 5/a\ 6 X p1 p2.
example hint2: ∀b1,b2.
- 〈b1,true〉==〈false,b2〉=true → 〈b1,true〉=〈false,b2〉.
+ \ 5a title="Pair construction" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6〈\ 5/a\ 6b1,\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6〉\ 5a title="eqb" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6=\ 5a title="Pair construction" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6〈\ 5/a\ 6\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,2,0)"\ 6false\ 5/a\ 6,b2〉\ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6 → \ 5a title="Pair construction" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6〈\ 5/a\ 6b1,\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,1,0)"\ 6true\ 5/a\ 6〉\ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6\ 5a title="Pair construction" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6〈\ 5/a\ 6\ 5a href="cic:/matita/basics/bool/bool.con(0,2,0)"\ 6false\ 5/a\ 6,b2〉.
#b1 #b2 #H @(\P H).
\ No newline at end of file
projects / helm.git / blobdiff