WIP: fix: add extra assumptions to HasEqn, about the *arguments* to instruction j - #111
Draft
alexkeizer wants to merge 5 commits into
Draft
WIP: fix: add extra assumptions to HasEqn, about the *arguments* to instruction j#111alexkeizer wants to merge 5 commits into
alexkeizer wants to merge 5 commits into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
An attempt at fixing up the HasEqn definition, and then getting an LLM to fix the rest of the proof.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem straightforward to do so, the LLM generated some objections for why it believes the original proof strategy no longer goes through; I have not yet examined these objections