628633d02e
The `induction` tactic complains if implicit targets cannot be inferred, let’s test that.
30 lines
862 B
Text
30 lines
862 B
Text
namespace Ex1
|
|
|
|
theorem elim_with_implicit_target (motive : Nat → Nat → Prop) (case1 : ∀ m n, motive m n) (n : Nat) {m : Nat} : motive m n := case1 _ _
|
|
|
|
example (n m : Nat) : n ≤ m := by
|
|
induction n using elim_with_implicit_target
|
|
case case1 => sorry
|
|
|
|
end Ex1
|
|
|
|
namespace Ex2
|
|
|
|
theorem elim_with_implicit_target (motive : Nat → Nat → Prop) (case1 : ∀ m n, motive m n) {n : Nat} (m : Nat) : motive m n := case1 _ _
|
|
|
|
example (n m : Nat) : n ≤ m := by
|
|
induction m using elim_with_implicit_target
|
|
case case1 => sorry
|
|
|
|
end Ex2
|
|
|
|
namespace Ex3
|
|
|
|
-- this one should work
|
|
theorem elim_with_implicit_target (motive : (n : Nat) → Fin n → Prop) (case1 : ∀ m n, motive m n) {n : Nat} (m : Fin n) : motive n m := case1 _ _
|
|
|
|
example (n : Nat) (m : Fin n) : n ≤ m := by
|
|
induction m using elim_with_implicit_target
|
|
case case1 => sorry
|
|
|
|
end Ex3
|