Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
I
Iris
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 122
    • Issues 122
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 18
    • Merge Requests 18
  • CI / CD
    • CI / CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI / CD
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Members
    • Members
  • Collapse sidebar
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
  • Iris
  • Iris
  • Issues
  • #271

Closed
Open
Opened Nov 06, 2019 by Ralf Jung@jungOwner

Follow-up from "Lang lemmas": intuitive explanation of mixin_step_by_val

In !324 (merged) I started a discussion to find an intuitive explanation of "mixin_step_by_val". I propose this, and I still think it's good:

"Let [fill K e1] and [fill K' e1'] be two decompositions of the same expression such that [e1'] is reducible. Then either [K] is a prefix of [K'] (so [e1] actually contains [e1'] as its head redex), or [e1] is a value. In other words, there cannot be two entirely unrelated head redexes that actually reduce."

@amintimany had an objection that I did not understand:

This does not really say anything about there not being redxes!

My response:

Of course it does? If there are redexes, the contexts are related; thus if there are unrelated contexts, there are no redexes.

@amintimany @robbertkrebbers let's discuss here.

Assignee
Assign to
Iris 3.3
Milestone
Iris 3.3
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None
Reference: iris/iris#271