On Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:20:28 PM UTC+2 martin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I stripped your proof down to:
THEOREM T == ASSUME NEW S(_), NEW U(_), NEW M(_), NEW P(_),
NEW B(_),
\A x : U(x),
\A x : ~U(x)
PROVE
FALSE
PROOF
OBVIOUS
The equality binds stronger than the conjunction, such that the axiom is
parenthesized as \A x : (M(x) = S(x)) /\ ~U(x) allowing me to remove the other
conjunct from the universal quantification. Now it's easily visible that the
assumptions are a contradiction :)
cheers,
Martin
On 11/30/22 11:26, jack malkovick wrote:
> Let's say we have this simple theorem
>
> THEOREM 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
> OBVIOUS
>
> It 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+u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:tlaplus+u...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/4db36d5e-1661-43f3-a34c-89923ede385en%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tlaplus/4db36d5e-1661-43f3-a34c-89923ede385en%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.