Added medium post metadata

This commit is contained in:
Brandon Rozek 2023-02-01 19:36:22 -05:00
parent 8a93e4fb70
commit 6ad0dc95ac
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 26E457DA82C9F480
3 changed files with 19 additions and 14 deletions

View file

@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
---
title: "Induction in Lean 3: Three Techniques"
date: 2023-01-30T21:07:43-05:00
draft: false
tags: ["Formal Methods"]
date: 2023-01-30 21:07:43-05:00
draft: false
math: true
medium_enabled: true
medium_post_id: 5b4a36988c6d
tags:
- Formal Methods
title: 'Induction in Lean 3: Three Techniques'
---
When proving properties of an inductive data type, chances are that we need to perform the induction tactic on the data structure. There are multiple ways to approach this though and each comes with its own pros and cons.
@ -116,4 +118,4 @@ Personally, this one is the easiest for me to follow. The main issue that I have
## Conclusion
Each approach comes with its tradeoffs. The `rec_on` approach looks clean for single induction proofs. Meanwhile, the pattern matching approach works great with multiple induction. The easiest approach to determining the appropriate subgoals is to use the `induction` tactic. In fact, it sometimes is more efficient to write the entire proof via tactics first and then work towards making it more readable with additional subproofs and rewriting.
Each approach comes with its tradeoffs. The `rec_on` approach looks clean for single induction proofs. Meanwhile, the pattern matching approach works great with multiple induction. The easiest approach to determining the appropriate subgoals is to use the `induction` tactic. In fact, it sometimes is more efficient to write the entire proof via tactics first and then work towards making it more readable with additional subproofs and rewriting.

View file

@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
---
title: "Quick LaTex: Footnotes with no Counter"
date: 2022-09-23T15:34:28-04:00
date: 2022-09-23 15:34:28-04:00
draft: false
tags: ["LaTex"]
math: false
medium_enabled: true
medium_post_id: d0a88900c580
tags:
- LaTex
title: 'Quick LaTex: Footnotes with no Counter'
---
Let's say there's a scenario where you want to have a footnote, but you don't want a counter associated with it. In order to stay consistent with the document style, the solution should use `\footnote` within its implementation.
@ -52,5 +54,4 @@ Complete Minimal Example:
\end{document}
```
```

View file

@ -1,10 +1,12 @@
---
title: "Readable Lean 3 Proofs"
date: 2023-01-27T22:01:54-05:00
date: 2023-01-27 22:01:54-05:00
draft: false
tags: ["Formal Methods"]
math: true
medium_enabled: true
medium_post_id: 5fb876d4d819
tags:
- Formal Methods
title: Readable Lean 3 Proofs
---
*Important Note: This blog post uses the Lean 3 syntax*
@ -180,4 +182,4 @@ When most people are taught how to write proofs in an interactive theorem prover
We can take the guesswork out of figuring out the proof state by carefully selecting tactics which allow us to explicitely show the object being constructed. In Lean, these are `assume`, `have`, and `show`. Also making use of the inference rules themselves such as `or.elim` is a great alternative to `cases`, and `and.intro` is a great alternative to split.
If you have any other techniques on making ITP proofs more readable, please let me know.
If you have any other techniques on making ITP proofs more readable, please let me know.