[isabelle] Unexpected assumptions in nested contexts
Nesting two contexts, where the inner context makes assumptions about
fixed variables from the outer context, results in unexpected
all-quantified assumptions. Consider this minimal example:
fixes I :: "'a set"
assumes I: "finite I"
lemma test: "something_about I"
Looking at the fact `test` from outside both contexts with `thm test`, I
(!!I. finite I) ==> ?something_about ?I [!]
Obviously, this fact says something completely different. Am I doing
something wrong here?
(Also, what does the `[!]` mean after the fact?)
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and