*To*: cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk*Subject*: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]*From*: Lars Noschinski <noschinl at in.tum.de>*Date*: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:08:31 +0100*In-reply-to*: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1211221732160.24280@macbroy21.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>*References*: <50916DB3.4030707@cs.bham.ac.uk> <B342CF2B-EEC3-4932-A98D-193702F57A14@cam.ac.uk> <5091CE53.6020006@cs.bham.ac.uk> <C76381F2-5127-48DF-B198-DE2B3AABEAB1@cam.ac.uk> <50AE3314.8060002@cs.bham.ac.uk> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1211221732160.24280@macbroy21.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>*User-agent*: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.10) Gecko/20121027 Icedove/10.0.10

On 22.11.2012 17:56, Makarius wrote:

* 'definition' with Pure equality (==) is quite old-fashioned. Normally you just use HOL = or its abbreviation for bool <-> here, as you would for 'primrec', 'fun', 'function' (In contrast HOL --> and ! are old-fashioned/cumbersome, where Pure ==> and !! would do the job better.)

BTW, the shortest structured proof that is not a script looks like this: lemma A unfolding a_def b_def c_def auto

To avoid confusion: There is a "by" missing: lemma A unfolding a_def b_def c_def by auto

The Isar method "contradiction" allows to present to two preconditions in either order -- this often happens in practice. For notE the negated formula has to come first, to eliminate it properly.

Never saw this method before. I'll have a look. -- Lars

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Florian Haftmann

**Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Makarius

**References**:**[isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Christoph LANGE

**Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Lawrence Paulson

*From:*Christoph LANGE

*From:*Makarius

- Previous by Date: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]
- Next by Date: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]
- Previous by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]
- Next by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]
- Cl-isabelle-users November 2012 archives indexes sorted by: [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ date ]
- Cl-isabelle-users list archive Table of Contents
- More information about the Cl-isabelle-users mailing list