Z3 proofs: Are hypothesis and lemma rules always cleanly nested? -
quick question: in z3 proof (e.g. 4.3.2), "hypothesis" rule introduces local assumption, discharged "lemma" rule. "hypothesis" , "lemma" rules cleanly nested, meaning 1 map z3 proofs language nested proof blocks, or can 1 have sequence
hypothesis 1 hypothesis 2 lemma 1 lemma 2 ? thanks.
you right, documentation isn't clear on this. updating to:
\nicebox{ t1: false [lemma t1]: (or (not l_1) ... (not l_n)) } proof object has 1 antecedent: hypothetical proof false. converts proof in proof (or (not l_1) ... (not l_n)), when t1 contains open hypotheses: l_1, ..., l_n. hypotheses closed after application of lemma. furthermore, there no other open hypotheses in subtree covered lemma.
Comments
Post a Comment