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

*From*: jack malkovick <sillymouse333@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Wed, 30 Nov 2022 02:27:17 -0800 (PST)*References*: <4db36d5e-1661-43f3-a34c-89923ede385en@googlegroups.com>

Did this new assumption introduced an inconsistency? I don't see how, but I miss something for sure...

On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 12:26:26 PM UTC+2 jack malkovick wrote:

Let's say we have this simple theoremTHEOREM T ==

ASSUME

NEW NEW S(_), NEW U(_), NEW M(_), NEW P(_),

\A x : M(x) = S(x) /\ ~U(x),

\A x : P(x) = M(x)

PROVE

\A x : P(x) => S(x)PROOF

OBVIOUSIt is true.If I negate the goal to \E x : ~(P(x) => S(x)) same as \E x : P(x) /\ ~S(x) it becomes red.However, if I add another assumption

NEW B(_), \A x : B(x) = S(x) /\ U(x),The theorem turns green! How can this new assumption make the theorem true?

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/d0896133-b1b7-4bce-9d53-575d4f9f52afn%40googlegroups.com.

**References**:**[tlaplus] simple toy theorem***From:*jack malkovick

- Prev by Date:
**[tlaplus] simple toy theorem** - Next by Date:
**Re: [tlaplus] simple toy theorem** - Previous by thread:
**[tlaplus] simple toy theorem** - Next by thread:
**Re: [tlaplus] simple toy theorem** - Index(es):