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

*From*: Stephan Merz <stephan.merz@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 1 Dec 2022 20:28:46 +0100*References*: <42656e1a-326f-4713-a373-4f639db81fdcn@googlegroups.com>

Hi, I am glad that TLAPS doesn’t prove this because it’s wrong. As a simple counter-example consider P(x) == 1 Q(x) == 2 Clearly, you have P(x) # Q(x) for any x but we do not expect to prove 1 = ~2. What TLAPS should prove is ASSUME NEW P(), NEW Q() PROVE \A x : ~(P(x) <=> Q(x)) => (P(x) <=> ~Q(x)) Stephan On 1 Dec 2022, at 19:58, jack malkovick <sillymouse333@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -- 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/CDB2418D-0C1A-4939-BF5D-C08DA1EC72A4%40gmail.com. |

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [tlaplus] another simple theorem***From:*jack malkovick

**Re: [tlaplus] another simple theorem***From:*jack malkovick

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

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