# Re: [tlaplus] Stuck on an obvious proof [TLAPS]

That worked! And it makes sense too.

Thank you for pointing that out!

Paul

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:54 PM Saksham Chand <schand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Types are missing (see the bold below).

        <2>3c. \A Q \in Quorum: \E a \in Q : maxVBal[a] \geq 0                 BY <2>3a, <2>3b DEF TypeOK, BallotsThanks,Saksham

On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 1:23 PM Saswata Paul <paulsaswata1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,

I have been working on a proof using TLAPS, but I seem to be stuck at a simple step which should be very obvious.

So the following is a snippet from my proof :

        <2>3a. \A Q \in Quorum: \E a \in Q : maxVBal[a] \geq b               OMITTED        <2>3b. b \geq 0              OMITTED                    <2>3c. \A Q \in Quorum: \E a \in Q : maxVBal[a] \geq 0                 BY <2>3a, <2>3b

The BY proof for step <2>3c is not going through.

Shouldn't <2>3c be a simple logical consequence of <2>3a and <2>3b ?  (Unless I am making an extremely silly error)

Is there a syntax/semantic error that is preventing the proof from going through or is it some limitation of the back end solvers that requires this simple proof to be broken even further?

Thank you

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tlaplus" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tlaplus+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.