Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:14:04 +0100 Still unable to show supp=fv for let with one existential.
Cezary Kaliszyk <kaliszyk@in.tum.de> [Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:14:04 +0100] rev 1349
Still unable to show supp=fv for let with one existential.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:09:48 +0100 Ported LF to the parser interface.
Cezary Kaliszyk <kaliszyk@in.tum.de> [Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:09:48 +0100] rev 1348
Ported LF to the parser interface.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:56:19 +0100 merge
Cezary Kaliszyk <kaliszyk@in.tum.de> [Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:56:19 +0100] rev 1347
merge
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:55:21 +0100 Lift fv and bn eqvts; no need to lift alpha_eqvt.
Cezary Kaliszyk <kaliszyk@in.tum.de> [Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:55:21 +0100] rev 1346
Lift fv and bn eqvts; no need to lift alpha_eqvt.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:04:47 +0100 Not much progress about the single existential let case.
Cezary Kaliszyk <kaliszyk@in.tum.de> [Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:04:47 +0100] rev 1345
Not much progress about the single existential let case.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:23:40 +0100 Fixed LF for one quantifier over 2 premises.
Cezary Kaliszyk <kaliszyk@in.tum.de> [Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:23:40 +0100] rev 1344
Fixed LF for one quantifier over 2 premises.
Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:41:22 +0100 Trying to fix the proofs for the single existential... So far failed.
Cezary Kaliszyk <kaliszyk@in.tum.de> [Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:41:22 +0100] rev 1343
Trying to fix the proofs for the single existential... So far failed.
(0) -1000 -300 -100 -30 -10 -7 +7 +10 +30 +100 +300 +1000 tip