Hi all,
A bit curious but potentially due to scalability issues,
I copy-pasted a subgoal from a theorem into a lemma preceding that theorem and marked that lemma with sorry.
Now proving that subgoal for that theorem seems not viable for some reason, even if there's an identical lemma proven just before it.
sledgehammer is not able to find a proof, and I tried giving it hints such as using subgoal_lemma
and still got no luck.
I was wondering why this happens and how to solve it? Did I make an error or it is a limitation of Isabelle? If the latter I guess the workaround would be to simplify that subgoal into smaller bits in that theorem and prove it directly there.
Best wishes,
Chengsong
Attathed file:
Transposed.thy
(
see line marked with (Here) (line 1871)
)
This works:
apply (rule subgoal1_simplified_form; assumption)
Sledgehammer works for me with sledgehammer(add:subgoal1_simplified_form)
I did not check what metis is doing, but it should be able to solve the goal
but there could some let problems here
Mathias Fleury said:
This works:
apply (rule subgoal1_simplified_form; assumption)
Thank you! This works like a charm.
What does the command assumption
mean?
Mathias Fleury said:
but there could some let problems here
What is a let problem?
assumption means to unify with one the assumptions in the goal
Chengsong Tan said:
Mathias Fleury said:
but there could some let problems here
What is a let problem?
I never remember if let is unfolded when passed to metis. This kind of things can make the term much bigger and much harder to recognize
Last updated: Dec 30 2024 at 16:22 UTC