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

Re: [tlaplus] Missing theorem



Hello Frédéric,

thanks for the suggestion – we always value hints about which lemmas are missing in the standard library. In fact, the next release will see many additions to the SequenceProperties module.

However, I am a little reluctant to add the lemma that you propose, since it is just proved by OBVIOUS. If you have an instance of this lemma in the context of a larger proof where the prover was unable to prove such a step, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Regards,
Stephan


On 07 Nov 2014, at 15:50, fl <freder...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 
A theorem that is missing in SequenceProperties. tla (in my opinion).
 
ASSUME NEW S, NEW J \in Nat, NEW seq \in [ 1 .. J -> S ]
PROVE seq \in Seq(S)
 
--
FL

--
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 post to this group, send email to tla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tlaplus.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.