Skip to content
GitLab
Projects Groups Topics Snippets
  • /
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Register
  • Sign in
  • Iris Iris
  • Project information
    • Project information
    • Activity
    • Labels
    • Members
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributor statistics
    • Graph
    • Compare revisions
  • Issues 173
    • Issues 173
    • List
    • Boards
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge requests 22
    • Merge requests 22
  • CI/CD
    • CI/CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Deployments
    • Deployments
    • Releases
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • Value stream
    • CI/CD
    • Repository
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar
  • Iris
  • IrisIris
  • Issues
  • #271
Closed
Open
Issue created 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
Time tracking