#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.
-(* In several situation it is important to assume to have a decidable equality
+(*
+\ 5h2 class="section"\ 6Bool vs. Prop\ 5/h2\ 6
+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: *)
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
+(*
+\ 5h2 class="section"\ 6Small Scale Reflection\ 5/h2\ 6
+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". *)
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
+(*
+\ 5h2 class="section"\ 6Unification Hints\ 5/h2\ 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