I'm having some troubles in Coq when trying to perform case analysis on the result of a function (which returns an inductive type). When using the usual tactics, like elim
, induction
, destroy
, etc, the information gets lost.
I'll put an example:
We first have a function like so:
Definition f(n:nat): bool := (* definition *)
Now, imagine we are at this step in the proof of a specific theorem:
n: nat
H: f n = other_stuff
------
P (f n )
When I apply a tactic, like let's say, induction (f n)
, this happens:
Subgoal 1
n:nat
H: true = other_stuff
------
P true
Subgoal 2
n:nat
H: false = other_stuff
------
P false
However, what I want is something like this instead:
Subgoal 1
n:nat
H: true = other_stuff
H1: f n = true
------
P true
Subgoal 2
n:nat
H: false = other_stuff
H1: f n = false
------
P false
In the way it actually works, I lose information, specially I lose any information about f n
. In the problems I work with, I need to use the information that f n = true
or f n = false
, to use with other hypothesis, etc.
Is there a way to do the 2nd option?
I tried using stuff like cut(f n = false \/ f n = true)
but it becomes very tiresome, specially when I have several of these "special" inductions in a row. I want to know if there is something that basically works exactly like the cut
above, but with fewer tactics/proofs
The issue is that you perform
induction
on a constructed term, not a single variable. Keeping the information in your case has been proved to be a very difficult problem.The usual work-around is to abstract your constructed term using the
remember
tactic. I don't have the exact syntax in mind right now but you should try something likeHope it helps, V.