leanprover / leanprover/fp-lean
Suggestion: Clarify the redundancy in theorem `Nat.le_succ_of_le` proof
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Lean
- Stars
- 192
- Forks
- 73
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Thank you for writing this book! I've learned a lot from it.
I have the following question:
In section 8.4.2.1, the theorem Nat.le_succ_of_le has the same type as Nat.le.step. Why not just write:
theorem Nat.le_succ_of_le : n ≤ m → n ≤ m + 1 := .step
If this is only to show readers more of the proof-writing process, it would be better to point this out explicitly, so that readers won’t be confused.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with section 8.4.2.1 and the discussion of theorem Nat.le_succ_of_le. Explain whether its proof is intentionally shown as part of the proof-writing process despite matching Nat.le.step, and make the reason explicit so readers are not confused.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 1/5
- Estimated time
- Under an hour
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100