Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix terminology in L02rw.lean #81

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix terminology in L02rw.lean #81

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
5bb0c9e
Fix terminology in L02rw.lean
DecimalTurn Nov 29, 2024
e9a2e0a
Update Game/Levels/Tutorial/L02rw.lean
DecimalTurn Dec 2, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion Game/Levels/Tutorial/L02rw.lean
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ your list of assumptions. Lean thinks of `h` as being a secret proof of the
assumption, rather like `x` is a secret number.

Before we can use `rfl`, we have to \"substitute in for $y$\".
We do this in Lean by *rewriting* the proof `h`,
We do this in Lean by *rewriting* the proof with `h`,
Copy link
Member

@kbuzzard kbuzzard Dec 18, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
We do this in Lean by *rewriting* the proof with `h`,
We do this in Lean by *rewriting* `h`,

How about that? Although I feel like I now want to change it back to "rewriting the assumption h".

The point is that the rw tactic eats a list of assumptions, and it rewrites them, so "rewriting the assumption h" sounds completely accurate to me.

using the `rw` tactic.
"

Expand Down