Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with prop
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 32
A sort of definitionally proof-irrelevant propositions introduced in "Definitional Proof-Irrelevance without K" and implemented by Agda (as Prop) and Coq (as SProp).
1
vote
How does Prop relate to h-prop and double negation?
You can't prove a type to be in Prop -- it's either defined in Prop or not in Prop at all. Prop is a type that exists in the syntax of type theory. … You can either "truncate" a thing to Prop or hProp. …
- 6,532
7
votes
Accepted
Why can termination checker affect strict Prop in Agda?
After some research I have found a counterexample by Jesper Cockx:
data ⊥ : Prop where
data Bad : Prop where
b : ((P : Prop) → P → P) → Bad
bad : Bad
bad = b (λ P p → p)
no-bad : Bad → ⊥
no-bad (b …
- 6,532