-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
More results on BitEncoding.int2bs
#814
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
Conversation
New lemmas: `int2bs_strikeE`, `int2bs_strike_succE`
oskgo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These lemmas look like parts of some induction result. Is that how you're using it? Maybe it would make sense to provide an explicit induction rule as well? In the induction rule k could be left mostly abstract, which would make it a bit cleaner to use.
|
Not sure to understand. This lemmas tell you exactly what happens in the binary representation when incrementing by 1. How could |
I think you could avoid specifying it exactly as the |
|
"For all |
|
I'll elaborate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it looks like the main motivation of these lemmas is to use them when you have a statement like I recognize that they're also going to be useful even when you're not doing induction. EDIT: If your usecase doesn't look anything like this you can ignore my remark. |
|
I am using them in a |
oskgo
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fair enough. Looks good to me. Approved.
New lemmas:
int2bs_strikeE,int2bs_strike_succE