Stream: Archive Mirror: Isabelle Users Mailing List

Topic: [isabelle] Baffling behavior: unable to prove P=>P


view this post on Zulip Email Gateway (Aug 19 2022 at 15:37):

From: Holden Lee <hl422@cam.ac.uk>
At a certain point in my proof I have the goal

m = 0 ==> N = 0 ==> card {l. l = [] ∧ (∀n∈set l. n = 0)} = Suc 0

OK, Isabelle failed to do this with auto so I inserted some statements
before:

have l: "{l::int list. l = [] ∧ (∀n∈set l. n = 0)} = {[]}"
by auto
hence l2: "card {l::int list. l = [] ∧ (∀n∈set l. n = 0)} = 1"
by auto

Now apply (insert l2, auto) gives

m = 0 ==>
N = 0 ==>
card {l. l = [] ∧ (∀n∈set l. n = 0)} = Suc 0 ==> card {l. l = [] ∧
(∀n∈set l. n = 0)} = Suc 0

The two statements are exactly the same (I checked the color of the
variables too, anyway they're all bound). try0 fails and sledgehammer
hangs. What gives?

-Holden

view this post on Zulip Email Gateway (Aug 19 2022 at 15:38):

From: Holden Lee <hl422@cam.ac.uk>
Never mind: it turned out one of the statements is l::nat list instead.
Still, sneaky...

-Holden

view this post on Zulip Email Gateway (Aug 19 2022 at 15:38):

From: Johannes Hölzl <hoelzl@in.tum.de>
Btw, you can proof this with the simplifier by:

simp cong: conj_cong

Then

{l. l = [] ∧ (∀n∈set l. n = 0)}
= with conj_cong
{l. l = [] ∧ (∀n∈set []. n = 0)}
=
{[]}


Last updated: Nov 21 2024 at 12:39 UTC