*To*: Duncan Higgins <mail at duncan-higgins.co.uk>*Subject*: Re: [isabelle] Using case_tac with functions that have not been exhaustively defined*From*: Amine Chaieb <chaieb at in.tum.de>*Date*: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:02:06 +0200*Cc*: cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk*In-reply-to*: <004d01c8ece1$44c77c20$0200a8c0@HPXW4200>*References*: <004d01c8ece1$44c77c20$0200a8c0@HPXW4200>*Sender*: Amine Chaieb <chaieb.amine at googlemail.com>*User-agent*: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025)

Hi Duncan, Duncan Higgins wrote:

I guess what I was expecting to see was something like:lemma hd_t_list_equals_T : "hd xs = T"; apply ( case_tac "hd xs",simp );proof (prove): step 0goal (1 subgoal):1. xs = x # xsa ==> hd xs = Twhich would then be unsolvable.

I don't see why this behaviour should

Amine.

**References**:**[isabelle] Using case_tac with functions that have not been exhaustively defined***From:*Duncan Higgins

- Previous by Date: Re: [isabelle] Using case_tac with functions that have not been exhaustively defined
- Next by Date: Re: [isabelle] A few questions about LaTeX theory output
- Previous by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Using case_tac with functions that have not been exhaustively defined
- Next by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Using case_tac with functions that have not been exhaustively defined
- Cl-isabelle-users July 2008 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