*To*: John Munroe <munddr at gmail.com>*Subject*: Re: [isabelle] Quantifying over conditions*From*: Tjark Weber <webertj at in.tum.de>*Date*: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:43:43 +0000*Cc*: isabelle-users at cl.cam.ac.uk*In-reply-to*: <AANLkTimuS+OP29E3P2ZOVX3Og6nLdbk-3R5j7qG+0AAU@mail.gmail.com>*References*: <AANLkTimuS+OP29E3P2ZOVX3Og6nLdbk-3R5j7qG+0AAU@mail.gmail.com>

John, On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 07:37 +0000, John Munroe wrote: > If I have a theory containing something like: > > rule1: "a = 1 --> p = 0" > > where a and p are naturals. Is there a good way to express that > whether there exists a condition such that if it is satisfied, then "p > = 0"? We know that there is because "a = 1" by rule1. I am not sure I understand your question. Working in higher-order logic, you can quantify over truth values/predicates: lemma "EX Q. Q --> p = 0" However, the lemma trivially holds (independently of rule1): Q can be instantiated to False, or to "p = 0". Kind regards, Tjark

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [isabelle] Quantifying over conditions***From:*John Munroe

**References**:**[isabelle] Quantifying over conditions***From:*John Munroe

- Previous by Date: Re: [isabelle] Comparing polymorphic functions
- Next by Date: [isabelle] Problem with frule_tac substitution
- Previous by Thread: [isabelle] Quantifying over conditions
- Next by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Quantifying over conditions
- Cl-isabelle-users February 2011 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