Isabelle: proof obligation - proving using counterexamples -
for example lemma this:
lemma somefunclemma: "∀ (e::sometype) . pre_somefunc 2 e"
which gives following when using quickcheck:
auto quickcheck found counterexample: e = - 1
or when using nitpick (which isn't main point here):
nitpick found counterexample: skolem constant: e = - 1
how can use counterexample finish proof?
as can see, i'm not familiar isabelle , pos.
thank help!
the presence of counterexample indicates won't able prove proposition, except maybe
the counterexample spurious;
the underlying logic inconsistent.
Comments
Post a Comment