Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
I
iris
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Monitor
Incidents
Service Desk
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Terms and privacy
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Tej Chajed
iris
Commits
dd01b3af
Commit
dd01b3af
authored
9 years ago
by
Ralf Jung
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
add some TODO so some stuff does not get forgotten
parent
3f715e68
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
2
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
2 changed files
algebra/dra.v
+1
-0
1 addition, 0 deletions
algebra/dra.v
algebra/sts.v
+1
-0
1 addition, 0 deletions
algebra/sts.v
with
2 additions
and
0 deletions
algebra/dra.v
+
1
−
0
View file @
dd01b3af
...
@@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ Lemma to_validity_op (x y : A) :
...
@@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ Lemma to_validity_op (x y : A) :
to_validity
(
x
⋅
y
)
≡
to_validity
x
⋅
to_validity
y
.
to_validity
(
x
⋅
y
)
≡
to_validity
x
⋅
to_validity
y
.
Proof
.
split
;
naive_solver
auto
using
dra_op_valid
.
Qed
.
Proof
.
split
;
naive_solver
auto
using
dra_op_valid
.
Qed
.
(* TODO: This has to be proven again. *)
(*
(*
Lemma to_validity_included x y:
Lemma to_validity_included x y:
(✓ y ∧ to_validity x ≼ to_validity y)%C ↔ (✓ x ∧ x ≼ y).
(✓ y ∧ to_validity x ≼ to_validity y)%C ↔ (✓ x ∧ x ≼ y).
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
algebra/sts.v
+
1
−
0
View file @
dd01b3af
...
@@ -385,6 +385,7 @@ Qed.
...
@@ -385,6 +385,7 @@ Qed.
(* This is surprisingly different from to_validity_included. I am not sure
(* This is surprisingly different from to_validity_included. I am not sure
whether this is because to_validity_included is non-canonical, or this
whether this is because to_validity_included is non-canonical, or this
one here is non-canonical - but I suspect both. *)
one here is non-canonical - but I suspect both. *)
(* TODO: These have to be proven again. *)
(*
(*
Lemma sts_frag_included S1 S2 T1 T2 :
Lemma sts_frag_included S1 S2 T1 T2 :
closed S2 T2 → S2 ≢ ∅ →
closed S2 T2 → S2 ≢ ∅ →
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment