问题
A question is posed on the IsaUserList on how to prove this lemma:
lemma "dom (SOME b. dom b = A) = A"
As a first response, P.Lammich says that obtain needs to be used:
You have to show that there is such a beast b, ie,
proof -
obtain b where "dom b = A" ...
thus ?thesis
sledgehammer (*Should find a proof now, using the rules for SOME, probably SomeI*)
Here, I have one main question, one secondary question, and I wonder about some differences between what P.Lammich says to do, some things M.Eberl does, and the results that I got.
- Q1: I get the warning
Introduced fixed type variable(s): 'c in "b__"at my use ofobtain, and at the use of thebystatement that proves theobtain. Can I get rid of this warning? - Q2: Is there a command of three dots,
...? I assume it means, "Your proof goes here." However, it sometimes sounds like the writer is also saying, "...because, after all, the proof is really simple here." I also know that there is the command.forby this, and..forby rule. Additionally, I entertain the idea that...is commonly known to be some simple proof statement which I'm supposed to know, but don't.
The following source will show the warning. It could be I'm supposed to fix something. The source also shows how I had to help sledgehammer, which is that I had to put an exists statement it.
I leave the error in that's due to the schematic variable, in case anyone is interested in that.
(* I HELP SLEDGEHAMMER with an exists statement. I can delete the exists
statement after the `metis` proof is found.
The `?'c1` below causes an error, but `by` still proves the goal.
*)
lemma "dom (SOME b. dom b = A) = A"
proof-
have "? x. x = (SOME b. dom b = A)"
by(simp)
from this
obtain b where ob1: "dom b = A"
(*WARNING: Orange squiggly under `obtain`. Message: Introduced fixed type
variable(s): 'c in "b__".*)
by(metis (full_types) dom_const dom_restrict inf_top_left)
thus ?thesis
using[[show_types]]
(*Because of `show_types`, a schematic type variable `?'c1` will be part
of the proof command that `sledgehammer` provides in the output panel.*)
(*sledgehammer[minimize=smart,preplay_timeout=10,timeout=60,verbose=true,
isar_proofs=smart,provers="z3 spass remote_vampire"]*)
by(metis (lifting, full_types)
`!!thesis::bool.(!!b::'a => ?'c1 option. dom b = (A::'a set) ==> thesis)
==> thesis`
someI_ex)
(*ERROR: Illegal schematic type variable: ?'c1::type.
To get rid of the error, delete `?`, or use `ob1` as the fact.*)
qed
My Q1 and Q2 are related to what's above. As part of my wonderings, there is the issue of getting an error because of the schematic variable. I may report that as bug-type issue.
In his IsaUserList response, M.Eberl says that he got the following sledgehammer proof for the obtain. He says the proof is slow, and it is. It's about 2 seconds for me.
by(metis (lifting, full_types)
dom_const dom_restrict inf_top.left_neutral someI_ex)
The proof that sledgehammer found for me above for thus ?thesis is only 4ms.
回答1:
Answer to Q1
Because of M.Eberl's comment, I made a respectable effort to figure out how to get a witness without using obtain. In the process, I answered my main question.
I got rid of the warning about introducing 'c as a type variable by using b :: "'a => 'b option", instead of b, as shown here:
lemma "dom (SOME b. dom b = A) = A"
proof-
obtain b :: "'a => 'b option" where "dom (b) = A"
by(metis (full_types) dom_const dom_restrict inf_top_left)
thus ?thesis
by(metis (lifting, full_types) exE_some)
qed
Answer to Q2
(Update 140119) I finally found Isar syntax for ..., on page 6 of isar-ref.pdf.
term ...-- the argument of the last explicitly stated result (for infix application this is the right-hand side)
The string ... is not exactly a friendly search string. Finding the meaning was a result of starting to look through chapter 1. I now see that chapters 1, 2, and 6 of isar-ref.pdf are key chapters for getting some help on how to use Isar to do proofs. (End update.)
Concerning an error due to using fix/assume as an alternate to obtain
Now, I return back to M.Eberl telling me I shouldn't use obtain, which happened to be beneficial. But it brings up that it's a major effort to try to figure out how to use the language to make the PIDE happy. The last source I show below is another example of what a hassle it is to learn how to make the PIDE happy. To a large extent, it's just using examples to try and figure out the right combination of syntax and commands.
P.Lammich says to use obtain in his answer. I also looked up the use of obtain in prog-prove.pdf page 42, which discusses it in connection with the use of a witness.
I read a few other things, and I thought it was all telling me that obtain is crucial to fixing a variable or constant with certain properties.
Anyway, I used def to create a witness, so I learned something new:
declare[[show_sorts,show_brackets]]
lemma "dom (SOME b. dom b = A) = A"
proof-
def w == "(SOME b::('a => 'b option). dom b = A)"
hence "dom w = A"
by(metis (lifting, mono_tags) dom_const dom_restrict inf_top_left someI_ex)
print_facts
thus ?thesis
by(metis (lifting, full_types) dom_option_map exE_some)
qed
But, I try to use a fix/assume combination in place def, where supposedly def is an abbreviation, and I get that mysterious and greatly infuriating message, "Failed to refine any pending goal", which makes me wonder why I want to use this language.
declare[[show_sorts,show_brackets]]
lemma "dom (SOME b. dom b = A) = A"
proof-
fix w assume w_def: "w == (SOME b::('a => 'b option). dom b = A)"
hence "dom w = A"
by(metis (lifting, mono_tags) dom_const dom_restrict inf_top_left someI_ex)
print_facts
thus ?thesis
oops
For the two proofs, when the cursor is at the line before print_facts, what I see in the output panel is exactly the same, other than the def proof shows proof (state): step 4, and the fix/assume proofs shows proof (state): step 5. The facts at print_facts are also the same.
From searches, I know that "Failed to refine any pending goal" has been a source of great pain for many. In the past, I finally figured out the trick to get rid of it for what I was doing, but it doesn't make sense here, not that it made sense to me there either.
Update 140118_0054
L.Noschinski gives the subtle tip from IsaUserList 2012-11-13:
When you use "fix" or "def" to define a variable, they either get just generalized (i.e. turned into schematics) (fix) or replaced by their right hand side (definitions) when a block is closed / a show is performed.
So for the fix/assumes form of the proof, I put part of it in brackets, and for some reason, it exports the fact in the way that's needed:
lemma "dom (SOME b. dom b = A) = A"
proof-
{
fix w assume "w == (SOME b::('a => 'b option). dom b = A)"
hence "dom w = A"
by(metis (lifting, mono_tags) dom_const dom_restrict inf_top_left someI_ex)
}
thus ?thesis
by(metis (lifting, full_types) dom_option_map exE_some)
qed
I go ahead and throw in a let form of the proof. I wouldn't have known to use the schematic variable ?w without having looked at M.Eberl's proofs.
lemma "dom (SOME b. dom b = A) = A"
proof-
let ?w = "(SOME b::('a => 'b option). dom b = A)"
have "dom ?w = A"
by(metis (lifting, mono_tags) dom_const dom_restrict inf_top_left someI_ex)
thus ?thesis
by(metis (lifting, full_types) dom_option_map exE_some)
qed
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21197612/use-of-obtain-produces-a-fixed-type-variable-warning