rocq-prover / rocq-prover/stdlib
Strong natural induction should be simpler
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rocq Prover
- Stars
- 42
- Forks
- 38
- Avg merge
- 14h 6m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 3
Description
I'm a teacher trying to see how far coq is to being usable (and hoping to improve the situation) ; anytime I have a so-called strong induction, I find I always use the same line to get around it, so it's easy to just take it in Ltac and be done:
Ltac strong_nat_induction n := elim: n {-2}n (leqnn n).
makes it possible to do something like:
strong_nat_induction n => [|n IHn].
in proof scripts, and that looks much easier for students.
(NB: I have seen issue coq/coq#5343, but what I'm asking is more in terms of usability than in terms of feature.)
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 by reviewing the proposed Ltac strong_nat_induction definition and the example proof-script usage in this issue, then inspect how related tactics are organized in the stdlib. Done means providing a simpler strong-induction workflow for students and confirming that the shown proof-script form works.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100