From: George Karabotsos <g_karab@cs.concordia.ca>
Hello,
I have the following lemma:
lemma "i_0 + (1::nat) + 1 = i_0 + 2"
that seems to be satisfied by the following simplification rule:
apply(simp only: add_2_eq_Suc')
I would have expected to see the following subgoal:
i_0 + (1::nat) + 1 = Suc(Suc i_0)
Can anyone clarify why this is not the expected result?
TIA,
George
From: Tobias Nipkow <nipkow@in.tum.de>
Most likely because the simplifier always tries arithmetic to solve the
final subgoal. Which, in your case, is an arithmetic triviality. Hence
the goal is solved.
Tobias
George Karabotsos wrote:
Last updated: Nov 21 2024 at 12:39 UTC