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

Popular posts from this blog

get url and add instance to a model with prefilled foreign key :django admin -

css - Make div keyboard-scrollable in jQuery Mobile? -

android - Keyboard hides my half of edit-text and button below it even in scroll view -