Re: [isabelle] structured induction again?
I think you need to give arbitrary a list of lists, one for each
inductive predicate, separated by "and". In this case the first list
should probably be empty:
proof (induct arbitrary: and n N rule: weak_split.inducts)
Am 22/06/2011 04:12, schrieb Randy Pollack:
datatype preClam =
pcVar nat "nat list"
| pcLam preClam
inductive weak :: "nat \<Rightarrow> preClam \<Rightarrow> preClam
and split :: "preClam \<Rightarrow> (nat * preClam) \<Rightarrow> bool"
wkVar[intro!]: "weak n (pcVar m gam) (pcVar m (Cons n gam))"
| wkLam[intro]: "\<lbrakk>split wmM (m,M); weak n M wnM; weak m wnM
weak n (pcLam wmM) (pcLam wmnM)"
| split[intro!]: "weak n N wnN \<Longrightarrow> split wnN (n,N)"
I want to prove a theorem by simultaneous induction:
shows weak_pcPN:"weak m M wmM \<Longrightarrow> P"
and split_pcPN:"\<lbrakk>split wnN nN; nN = (n,N)\<rbrakk>
I want to generalize n and N which appear in the second part of the
lemma. (This is standard, as n and N were only introduced to make the
statement of the lemma suitable for induction.) So I expect to write
proof (induct arbitrary: n N rule: weak_split.inducts)
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and