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.
Last updated: Jun 05 2023 at 09:01 UTC