*To*: rlamar at stetson.edu*Subject*: Re: [isabelle] Conjunctions commutative in function arguments?*From*: nipkow at in.tum.de*Date*: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:37:04 +0100 (CET)*Cc*: cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk*In-reply-to*: <16530916C2FEF64EBE4C333390E3BEFC04FB5DF8@beta.ad.stetson.edu> (rlamar@stetson.edu)*References*: <16530916C2FEF64EBE4C333390E3BEFC04FB5DF8@beta.ad.stetson.edu>

lemma conj_commute: "P & Q ==> Q & P" by auto is not a very useful lemma in your context. It is just not true that "A ==> B" implies "f A ==> f B", sorry. If you replace "==>" by "=" it becomes true. Hence the popularity of "=", one of the greatest inventions of mathematics. Tobias

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [isabelle] Conjunctions commutative in function arguments?***From:*Viktor Kuncak

**References**:**Re: [isabelle] Conjunctions commutative in function arguments?***From:*Robert Lamar

- Previous by Date: Re: [isabelle] Fwd: (no subject)
- Next by Date: Re: [isabelle] Conjunctions commutative in function arguments?
- Previous by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Conjunctions commutative in function arguments?
- Next by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Conjunctions commutative in function arguments?
- Cl-isabelle-users March 2006 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