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