-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
Preserved EVM state relation #10
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.
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
To be honest I was kind of surprised I didn't found it in mathlib. Perhaps that is not _idiomatic_ Lean solution?
Julek
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
See comments
| symm | ||
| aesop_spec | ||
|
|
||
| def preservesEvm (s₀ : State) (s₁ : State) : Prop := |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this predicate should also compare evm states in the case where the second state is a Checkpoint no? 🙂
Clear/EVMState.lean
Outdated
| rw [preserved_def] at h | ||
| exact h.2.2.1 | ||
|
|
||
| def mono_keccak_map {evm evm' : EVMState} (h : preserved evm evm') : |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is just a projection function, it's not a monotonicity statement. It says that you can take out the last component of and.
The thing that you will need at some point is stuff like: insert is monotonic in its second argument given the preorder on your maps, i.e.:
m1 <= m2 -> insert x m1 <= insert x m2.
No description provided.