<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Congruence Closure in Intensional Type Theory · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.04391/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.04391/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Congruence Closure in Intensional Type Theory — mentioned by dselsam</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14744167</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1701.04391:14744167</guid><pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:55:26 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Having comparably powerful proof automation to Curry/Howard based systems is an open research problem. Isabelle/HOL is essentially isomorphic to a subset of Lean when we assume classical axioms, and any automation you can write for Isabelle, you can write for that subset of Lean. It is often easy to generalize automation techniques to support the rest of Lean (i.e. dependent types) as well, but sometimes doing so may introduce extra complexity or preclude the use of an indexing data structure. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04391 for an example of generalizing a procedure (congruence…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1701.04391/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LO</category></item></channel></rss>
