*To*: Lars Noschinski <noschinl at in.tum.de>*Subject*: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]*From*: Florian Haftmann <florian.haftmann at informatik.tu-muenchen.de>*Date*: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:41:45 +0100*Cc*: cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk*In-reply-to*: <50AE690A.80005@in.tum.de>*Organization*: TU Munich*References*: <50916DB3.4030707@cs.bham.ac.uk> <B342CF2B-EEC3-4932-A98D-193702F57A14@cam.ac.uk> <5091CE53.6020006@cs.bham.ac.uk> <C76381F2-5127-48DF-B198-DE2B3AABEAB1@cam.ac.uk> <50AE3314.8060002@cs.bham.ac.uk> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1211221732160.24280@macbroy21.informatik.tu-muenchen.de> <50AE5C0F.3080802@in.tum.de> <50AE63B1.4080702@informatik.tu-muenchen.de> <50AE690A.80005@in.tum.de>*User-agent*: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0

>>> Is there actually a drawback when using == instead of = or is it a mere >>> matter of style? I like using Pure equality because it saves me a level >>> of parentheses when I have a binder on the right hand side. >> >> It is simpler: >> >> a) Uniformity >> b) Less symbols > > Ok, these are stylistic reasons and both only hold when always using =, > and not <-> (<-> can be used for all of definition, primrec, fun(ction), > but only for boolean valued functions. And I don't like it for > definitions anyway ;)). The matter <-> vs. = is orthogonal to == vs. = >> Why care about »foo« anyway? This should have read »Why care about »==« anyway?«. The statement is that end-users need not to even now about »==« in most situations (the only exception known to me are rules like split_paired_All (all?) where you rewrite framework-level connectives). So why burden them with it? Florian -- PGP available: http://home.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/haftmann/pgp/florian_haftmann_at_informatik_tu_muenchen_de

**Attachment:
signature.asc**

**References**:**[isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Christoph LANGE

**Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Lawrence Paulson

**Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Christoph LANGE

**Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]***From:*Makarius

*From:*Lars Noschinski

*From:*Florian Haftmann

*From:*Lars Noschinski

- Previous by Date: Re: [isabelle] Length of Proofs
- Next by Date: Re: [isabelle] ?spam? Re: Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]
- Previous by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]
- Next by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Simpler theorem statements, and proofs for them [Re: Started auction theory toolbox; announcement, next steps, and questions]
- Cl-isabelle-users November 2012 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