Re: [isabelle] Generalized elimination rule?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Peter Lammich
<peter.lammich at> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm curious whether it is (easily) possible to apply elimination rules in
> Isabelle that
> eliminate more than one premise.
> There is a consumes-flag for cases rules, however, simply doing:
> lemma AB_elim[consumes 2]: "[| A; B; Foo => thesis |] ==> thesis"
> lemma  "[| A; B; C |] ==> Foo"
>  apply (cases rule: AB_elim)
> does not work, and leaves me with three subgoals, the last one being:
>  [|A; B; C; Foo |] ==>  Foo
>  apply (erule (1) AB_elim) leaves me with one subgoal being:
>    [| B; C; Foo |] ==>  Foo
> However, I want something that yields the subgoal:
>    [| C; Foo |] ==>  Foo

Hi Peter,

The "consumes" attribute only has an effect when you are in an
Isar-style proof with chained facts. Here's a situation where it works
as you expect:

lemma "[|A; B; C|] ==> Foo"
proof -
  assume "A" and "B" and "C"
  then show "Foo"
   (* there are now 3 chained facts: "A", "B", "C" *)
  apply (cases rule: AB_elim)

Now the first 2 chained facts are matched with rule AB_elim and
disappear. The remaining fact "C" stays in the remaining subgoal,
leaving "[| C; Foo |] ==>  Foo".

> and that also works if the A and B are not in order, i.e. for
>  [| ...; B; ...; A; ... |] ==> Foo
> apply (?? AB_elim) shall yield:
>  [| ...; ...; ...; Foo |] ==> Foo
> i.e. removing the matching A and B from the premises.

Unfortunately, chained facts can only be matched in the given order
(for efficiency reasons, I believe), so this doesn't really do what
you want.

> (I need this for termination and proper behavior of a set of elimination
> rules that I apply exhaustively with apply (...)+ ):
> Regards and thanks for any hints,
>  Peter

I don't think there is any easy way to accomplish what you want to
do---at least, I don't know of any already-implemented tactic in
Isabelle that does this. I do think such a tactic would be useful,
though; I've wished for it a few times myself.

It might be possible to implement such a tactic in ML. The obvious
approach of trying to generalize eresolve_tac probably won't work,
because eresolve_tac is implemented in terms of Thm.biresolution,
which is part of Isabelle's trusted kernel.

You could probably define this tactic on top of eresolve_tac:
Basically you would do "erule (n)" (which is basically "erule" then
"assumption" n times) followed by n calls to "thin_tac" to eliminate
the extra assumptions from the final proof state. The tricky bit would
be to figure out how to record which assumptions were matched by
"assumption", so you can tell "thin_tac" which ones to get rid of

Unfortunately, most of the development effort now is focused on
Isar-style proofs with chained facts, and not so much on tactics for
apply-style proofs. So I'd say it is unlikely that this feature will
be implemented by the main Isabelle development team. But be sure to
report back if you try to implement this yourself; I'm sure plenty of
people would find it useful.

- Brian

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.