Re: [isabelle] residual subgoals
> > Is it standard practice not to bother these but postpone solving them via
> the final qed?
> I'd say it's not standard practice. Most Isabelle users prefer not using meta-
> implications and meta-quantification in Isar proofs if it can be avoided. See
> Lars Noschinski's answer here for a case where it actually doesn't work if you
> use meta-implication:
Thanks. Re-formulating my goal I wrote
fixes n :: "nat"
assumes "computational_even n"
shows "structural_even n"
proof (induct n rule:computational_even.induct)
which results in
goal (3 subgoals):
1. structural_even 0
2. structural_even (Suc 0)
3. ân. structural_even n â structural_even (Suc (Suc n))
where the 2nd subgoal is simply not true.
What is wrong with that lemma expression?
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and