[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# Re: [tlaplus] Simple contradiction proof

Yes, it makes sense, I tried that too before...
I guess I was looking for a way to formulate a theorem in such a way it will be unprovable having an inconsistent set of facts.
Would that make any sense?

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 11:04:37 AM UTC+2 Stephan Merz wrote:
Hi,

could you explain why you are surprised? The theorem holds for two reasons: (i) the assertion (TRUE) is trivial, and (ii) the assumptions are contradictory, as you say. From contradictory assumptions, anything can be proved, and in fact the following also passes:

THEOREM

ASSUME
NEW P(_),
\A p : P(p),
\A p : ~P(p)
PROVE
FALSE
OBVIOUS

Regards,
Stephan

On 30 Nov 2022, at 09:53, jack malkovick <sillym...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I just started reading about TLAPS and I tried for fun the following silly thing

THEOREM T ==
ASSUME
NEW P(_),
\A p : P(p),
\A p : ~P(p)
PROVE
TRUE
PROOF
OBVIOUS

To my surprise, the result was green. I hoped that somehow it would "detect" the contradictions in the assumptions.

--
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+u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/904caba2-762e-49a2-bea5-1dc6a3506929n%40googlegroups.com.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/a244225f-f9a0-4db7-894c-cf52fd0bd762n%40googlegroups.com.