Modify large-elim-param.ndjson - #155
Merged
Merged
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
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is very courtesy-of-claude, but the existing test here fails a lot of checkers for the wrong reason — a lot of them are failing because the meta line has no
leanfield, and nanoda would decline without that because of the strict ordering requirements it imposes on ndjson numbering and ordering.This modified test provides the recursors, and MyBool.rec's recursor is the one a buggy kernel might provide, instead of the correct Prop-restricted one.
rpylean fails to reject the proof (on account of trusting the provided recursors) and accepts a proof of false. (And
zignodamusdeclines where it could just reject, due to panicking.)