Re: [isabelle] surprising behavior of schematic_lemma

On 15.04.2013 12:21, Ondřej Kunčar wrote:
Recently I've experienced a bit odd behavior of schematic_lemma.
Let's consider this minimal example:

schematic_lemma surprise:
"?A ⟹ ?B ⟹ ?C"
proof -
fix a1 :: 'a
fix a2 :: 'a
fix A :: "'a set"
show "a1 ∈ A ⟹ a2 ∈ A ⟹ a1 = a1 ∧ a2 = a2" by auto

Then what I get as a lemma surprise is the following theorem:
?a1.0 ∈ ?A ⟹ ?B ⟹ ?a1.0 = ?a1.0 ∧ ?a1.0 = ?a1.0

Not that it helps in your concrete case, but using meta implication in show will often get you unexpected results and is thus best avoided (by using assume instead).

  -- Lars

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