Hi everybody, I posted the question on SO but ppl is voting for close as offtopic, so I'm comming directly here
I was trying to prove this lemma, which seems reasonable to be but I couldn't figure out how to do it
Lemma leb_0_r : forall x, x <=? 0 = true -> x = 0.
intros. induction x. reflexivity. discriminate H.
Qed.
Lemma leb_S : forall a b, a <=? b = true -> a <=? S b = true.
intros a b Hab. induction b. apply leb_0_r in Hab. now rewrite Hab.
But here I got stuck on the induction hypothesis
1 subgoal
a, b : nat
Hab : (a <=? S b) = true
IHb : (a <=? b) = true -> (a <=? S b) = true
========================= (1 / 1)
(a <=? S (S b)) = true
I tried induction on a too
Lemma leb_S : forall a b, a <=? b = true -> a <=? S b = true.
intros a b Hab. induction a. reflexivity. simpl. destruct b.
discriminate Hab. simpl in Hab.
1 subgoal
a, b : nat
Hab : (a <=? b) = true
IHa : (a <=? S b) = true -> (a <=? S (S b)) = true
========================= (1 / 1)
(a <=? S b) = true
The problem is that I always get to S a <= b
or a <= S b
and I can't simplify that.
Try to generalize the induction hypothesis (generalize dependent
before induction
).
You may try an induction on a
, before pushing b
in the context.
Lemma leb_S : forall a b, a <=? b = true -> a <=? S b = true.
induction a.
- cbn; reflexivity.
- destruct b.
+ discriminate.
+ cbn; intros; apply IHa; assumption.
Qed.
Thank you Pierre!
Daniel Hilst Selli has marked this topic as resolved.
Last updated: Oct 01 2023 at 18:01 UTC