Definition of weak-head-reduction and proof of unicity of derivations #543
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ize / cleanup a bit more.
…y if we don't have direct access to the indices of the inductive and the arguments of constructors (due to "instantiate_params" and destArity getting in the way).
…uctives in the environment. Direct access to the contexts of indices and sort of an indutive, and constructor arguments and conclusion indices.
…mmas for spines involving identity substitutions
… but all cases on case are done
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Weak-head reduction is defined just like red1 without the congruence rules. To show a standardization theorem on it we'll need to show that it commutes with "internal" reduction that just does the missing congruences.