diff options
| author | Matej Kosik | 2015-11-06 15:09:34 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Hugo Herbelin | 2015-12-10 09:35:17 +0100 |
| commit | 38fc8566ab59bcf67e6eeaf5860ce97cfab38e74 (patch) | |
| tree | 37ef71b89323bf74efcdf86b00e91379f4cc66dd | |
| parent | 8efc7854332a3376a0e7ec348545cff83829a70e (diff) | |
CLEANUP PROPOSITION: does it make sense to refer to 'I' as 'inductive definition'? Doesn't make more sense to refer to it as 'inductive type'?
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/refman/RefMan-cic.tex | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/doc/refman/RefMan-cic.tex b/doc/refman/RefMan-cic.tex index 1cb0a7318e..87ef046fa4 100644 --- a/doc/refman/RefMan-cic.tex +++ b/doc/refman/RefMan-cic.tex @@ -1569,7 +1569,7 @@ elimination on any sort is allowed. \paragraph{Type of branches.} Let $c$ be a term of type $C$, we assume $C$ is a type of constructor -for an inductive definition $I$. Let $P$ be a term that represents the +for an inductive type $I$. Let $P$ be a term that represents the property to be proved. We assume $r$ is the number of parameters. |