Hello, I'm playing with easycrypt, but is there any reason for
res < 2 to be defined (Int module) while
res > 2 is not defined? It is to avoid duplicating the rules for the two versions?
Ok, I guess the fact that
=> already exists is also in favor of not using =>
This topic was moved here from #Coq users > Easycrypt by Karl Palmskog.
Hi @Leo Colisson , I guess indeed EasyCrypt follows the conventions of math-comp, where
x > y is just sugar for
y < x, so indeed, only
_ < _ is "primitive".
If you're interested in Easycrypt, then the Formosa zulip will probably give you a more detailed answer.
If you'd like to do cryptographic proofs in Coq, you could try our https://github.com/SSProve/ssprove
Thanks a lot @Bas Spitters . I was actually not aware of ssprove, I'll get it a try. @Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias Regarding
x > y, as far as I tried it would not even compile as I would get a typing issue saying that
> is not defined for integers, while
< is (which is part of my confusion). But I guess it's just something to know about ^^ (unless I missed something)
It's been a while since I used EC indeed, you can try the Formosa Zulip or ping @Pierre-Yves Strub who may be able to point out what the right forum is.
Hi I'm trying to follow https://fm.csl.sri.com/SSFT23/easycrypt-tutorial.pdf but when I try stepping through proof general and get to this line:
require import CyclicGroup.
And proof general says it cannot find theory CyclicGroup. I have the file co-located and ran it with easycrypt which generates a CyclicGroup.eco object file. Not sure if there's something else I need to have setup or I'm missing something.
Again, this is a question for Formosa Zulip.
Last updated: Dec 07 2023 at 09:01 UTC