Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

powerset_finite could be tighter #90

Open
kai-e opened this issue Mar 3, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

powerset_finite could be tighter #90

kai-e opened this issue Mar 3, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@kai-e
Copy link

kai-e commented Mar 3, 2023

The prelude has

  powerset_finite: JUDGEMENT
    powerset(A: finite_set[T]) HAS_TYPE finite_set[set[T]]

when it could be stronger.

powerset_finite2: JUDGEMENT
    powerset(A: finite_set[T]) HAS_TYPE finite_set[finite_set[T]]

with the proof

(""
 (skolem-typepred)
 (ground)
 (("1"
   (skolem-typepred)
   (expand "powerset")
   (lemma "finite_subset" ("s" "x!1" "A" "A!1"))
   (propax))
  ("2"
   (expand "is_finite")
   (skolem-typepred)
   (inst 1 "exp2(card(A!1))" "powerset_natfun(A!1)")
   (expand "injective?")
   (lemma "powerset_natfun_inj[T]")
   (grind))))

Maybe keep both.

@kai-e
Copy link
Author

kai-e commented Mar 15, 2023

I'm not entirely sure this is super-useful, but anyway, we can do a tiny bit better

powerset_finite3: JUDGEMENT
    powerset(B) HAS_TYPE non_empty_finite_set[finite_set[T]]

The proof (after having the previous one) is just the default ("" (judgement-tcc)).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant