diff --git a/code/aoc-2020 b/code/aoc-2020
index 2b69cbd..7a8503c 160000
--- a/code/aoc-2020
+++ b/code/aoc-2020
@@ -1 +1 @@
-Subproject commit 2b69cbd391398ed21ccf3b2b06d62dc46207fe85
+Subproject commit 7a8503c3fe1aa7e624e4d8672aa9b56d24b4ba82
diff --git a/content/blog/01_aoc_coq.md b/content/blog/01_aoc_coq.md
index 3b8264c..1aa26f5 100644
--- a/content/blog/01_aoc_coq.md
+++ b/content/blog/01_aoc_coq.md
@@ -735,6 +735,139 @@ A program can always take a step, and each time it does,
 the set of valid program counters decreases in size. Eventually,
 this set will become empty, so if nothing else, our program will
 eventually terminate in an "error" state. Thus, it will stop
-running no matter what.
+running no matter what. 
 
-The problem is: how do we express that?
+This seems like a task for induction, in this case on the size
+of the valid set. In particular, strong mathematical induction
+{{< sidenote "right" "strong-induction-note" "seem to work best." >}}
+Why strong induction? If we remove a single element from a set,
+its size should decrease strictly by 1. Thus, why would we need
+to care about sets of <em>all</em> sizes less than the current
+set's size?<br>
+<br>
+Unfortunately, we're not working with purely mathematical sets.
+Coq's default facility for sets is simply a layer on top
+of good old lists, and makes no effort to be "correct by construction".
+It is thus perfectly possible to have a "set" which inlcudes an element
+twice. Depending on the implementation of <code>set_remove</code>,
+we may end up removing the repeated element multiple times, thereby
+shrinking the length of our list by more than 1. I'd rather
+not worry about implementation details like that.
+{{< /sidenote >}}
+Someone on StackOverflow [implemented this](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45872719/how-to-do-induction-on-the-length-of-a-list-in-coq),
+so I'll just use it. The Coq theorem corresonding to strong induction
+on the length of a list is as follows:
+
+{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 205 207 >}}
+
+It reads,
+
+> If for some list `l`, the property `P` holding for all lists
+shorter than `l` means that it also holds for `l` itself, then
+`P` holds for all lists.
+
+This is perhaps not particularly elucidating. We can alternatively
+think of this as trying to prove some property for all lists `l`.
+We start with all empty lists. Here, we have nothing else to rely
+on; there are no lists shorter than the empty list, and our property
+must hold for all empty lists. Then, we move on to proving
+the property for all lists of length 1, already knowing that it holds
+for all empty lists. Once we're done there, we move on to proving
+that `P` holds for all lists of length 2, now knowing that it holds
+for all empty lists _and_ all lists of length 1. We continue
+doing this, eventually covering lists of any length.
+
+Before proving termination, there's one last thing we have to
+take care off. Coq's standard library does not come with
+a proof that removing an element from a set makes it smaller;
+we have to provide it ourselves. Here's the claim encoded
+in Coq:
+
+{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 217 219 >}}
+
+This reads, "if a set `s` contains a finite natural
+number `f`, removing `f` from `s` reduces the set's size".
+The details of the proof are not particularly interesting,
+and I hope that you understand intuitively why this is true.
+Finally, we make our termination claim.
+
+{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 230 231 >}}
+
+It's quite a strong claim - given _any_ program counter,
+set of valid addresses, and accumulator, a valid input program
+will terminate. Let's take a look at the proof.
+
+{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 232 234 >}}
+
+We use `intros` again. However, it brings in variables
+in order, and we really only care about the _second_ variable.
+We thus `intros` the first two, and then "put back" the first
+one using `generalize dependent`. Then, we proceed by
+induction on length, as seen above.
+
+{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 235 236>}}
+
+Now we're in the "inductive step". Our inductive hypothesis
+is that any set of valid addresses smaller than the current one will
+guarantee that the program will terminate. We must show
+that using our set, too, will guarantee termination. We already
+know that a valid input, given a state, can have one of three
+possible outcomes: "ok" termination, "failed" termination,
+or a "step". We use `destruct` to take a look at each of these
+in turn. The first two cases ("ok" termination and "failed" termination)
+are fairly trivial:
+
+{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 237 240 >}}
+
+We basically connect the dots between the premises (in a form like `done`)
+and the corresponding inference rule (`run_noswap_done`). The more
+interesting case is when we can take a step.
+
+{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 241 253 >}}
+
+Since we know we can take a step, we know that we'll be removing
+the current program counter from the set of valid addresses. This
+set must currently contain the present program counter (since otherwise
+we'd have "failed"), and thus will shrink when we remove it. This,
+in turn, lets us use the inductive hypothesis: it tells us that no matter the
+program counter or accumulator, if we start with this new "shrunk"
+set, we will terminate in some state. Coq's constructive
+nature helps us here: it doesn't just tells us that there is some state
+in which we terminate - it gives us that state! We use `edestruct` to get
+a handle on this final state, which Coq automatically names `x`. At this
+time Coq still isn't convinced that our new set is smaller, so we invoke
+our earlier `set_remove_length` theorem to placate it.
+
+We now have all the pieces: we know that we can take a step, removing
+the current program counter from our current set. We also know that
+with that newly shrunken set, we'll terminate in some final state `x`.
+Thus, all that's left to say is to apply our "step" rule. It asks
+us for three things:
+
+1. That the current program counter is in the set. We've long since
+established this, and `auto` takes care of that.
+2. That a step is possible. We've already established this, too,
+since we're in the "can take a step" case. We apply `Hst`,
+the hypothesis that confirms that we can, indeed, step.
+3. That we terminate after this. The `x` we got
+from our induction hypothesis came with a proof that
+running with the "next" program counter and accumulator
+will result in termination. We apply this proof, automatically
+named `H0` by Coq.
+
+And that's it! We've proved that a program terminates no matter what.
+This has also (almost!) given us a solution to part 1. Consider the case
+in which we start with program counter 0, accumulator 0, and the "full"
+set of allowed program counters. Since our proof works for _all_ configurations,
+it will also work for this one. Furthermore, since Coq proofs are constructive,
+this proof will __return to us the final program counter and accumulator!__
+This is precisely what we'd need to solve part 1.
+
+But wait, almost? What's missing? We're missing a few implementation details:
+* We've not provided a concrete impelmentation of integers.
+* We assumed (reasonably, I would say) that it's possible to convert a natural
+number to an integer.
+* We also assumed (still reasonably) that we can try convert an integer
+back to a finite natural number, failing if it's too small or too large.
+
+{{< todo >}}Finish up{{< /todo >}}