-theorem eq_map : ∀A,B,f,g,l. (∀x.f x \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 g x) → \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter3/map.fix(0,3,1)"\ 6map\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5span style="text-decoration: underline;"\ 6\ 5/span\ 6A B f l \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter3/map.fix(0,3,1)"\ 6map\ 5/a\ 6 A B g l.
+(* Can we prove that map_again is "the same" as map? We should first of all
+clarify in which sense we expect the two functions to be equal. Equality in
+Matita has an intentional meaning: it is the smallest predicate induced by
+convertibility, i.e. syntactical equality up to normalization. From an
+intentional point of view, map and map_again are not functions, but programs,
+and they are clearly different. What we would like to say is that the two
+programs behave in the same way: this is a different, extensional equality
+that can be defined in the following way. *)
+
+definition ExtEq ≝ λA,B:Type[0].λf,g:A→B.∀a:A.f a \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 g a.
+
+(* Proving that map and map_again are extentionally equal in the
+previous sense can be proved by a trivial structural induction on the list *)
+
+lemma eq_map: ∀A,B,f. \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter3/ExtEq.def(1)"\ 6ExtEq\ 5/a\ 6 ?? (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter3/map.fix(0,3,1)"\ 6map\ 5/a\ 6 A B f) (\ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter3/map_again.def(2)"\ 6map_again\ 5/a\ 6 A B f).
+#A #B #f #n (elim n) normalize // qed.
+
+
+ theorem eq_map : ∀A,B,f,g,l. (∀x.f x \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 g x) → \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter3/map.fix(0,3,1)"\ 6map\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5span style="text-decoration: underline;"\ 6\ 5/span\ 6A B f l \ 5a title="leibnitz's equality" href="cic:/fakeuri.def(1)"\ 6=\ 5/a\ 6 \ 5a href="cic:/matita/tutorial/chapter3/map.fix(0,3,1)"\ 6map\ 5/a\ 6 A B g l.