| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Error:
zf: Precondition failed in encodeTerm, cannot encode terms with comprehensions directly: TermSep (NamedVar "n") (TermSymbol (SymbolMixfix [Just (Command "naturals")]) []) (Scope (TermSymbol (SymbolPredicate (PredicateRelation (Command "rless"))) [TermSymbol (SymbolInteger 1) [],TermVar (B ())]))
CallStack (from HasCallStack):
error, called at source/Encoding.hs:89:13 in zf-0.3.0.0-3mIpbM9y9fK3yXjxxoLDb2:Encoding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unexpeced Mismatch in line 99 and 109 or the pair
100 and 108. Parsing works with line 99 and 108 or with
the lines 100 and 109.
zf: MismatchedAssume (TermSymbol (SymbolPredicate (PredicateNoun (SgPl {sg = [Just (Word "natural"),Just (Word "number")], pl = [Just (Word "natural"),Just (Word "numbers")]}))) [TermVar (NamedVar "n")]) (Connected Implication (TermSymbol (SymbolPredicate (PredicateRelation (Command "in"))) [TermVar (NamedVar "n"),TermSymbol (SymbolMixfix [Just (Command "naturals")]) []]) (TermSymbol (SymbolPredicate (PredicateVerb (SgPl {sg = [Just (Word "has"),Just (Word "cardinality"),Nothing], pl = [Just (Word "ha"),Just (Word "cardinality"),Nothing]}))) [TermSymbol (SymbolMixfix [Just (Command "seq"),Just InvisibleBraceL,Nothing,Just InvisibleBraceR,Just InvisibleBraceL,Nothing,Just InvisibleBraceR]) [TermSymbol (SymbolMixfix [Just (Command "emptyset")]) [],TermVar (NamedVar "n")],TermSymbol (SymbolMixfix [Just (Command "suc"),Just InvisibleBraceL,Nothing,Just InvisibleBraceR]) [TermVar (NamedVar "n")]]))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contradiction was due to a misstake in the definition in sequence.
|
|
False can be proven with
iff_sequence, codom_of_emptyset_can_be_anything,sequence,
emptyset_is_function_on_emptyset,id_dom,in_irrefl,
suc_subseteq_implies_in,emptyset_subseteq
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finalised the proof output and goals.
The Local Function definition now producces a Function f with the right
domain and range, together with the rules presented in cases.
Then proof goal of this local definition is set to
for all x we have x is element of dom(f) if and only if x is in exactly one of the subdomains.
This suffices as welldefindness check on f, besides the right range.
Further checks that should be implemented are the correct range of the function.
And optional subproof such that the presented goal can be check easily.
|
|
since now some could define a function with overlapping
and worng subdomains
|
|
But the Proof that the domain of the local function
is not right. Also if in the definition of our local
function we just use f(x) = x then we get a technical
ambigus parse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
resloved some proofing complications, but
they can prove flase together with lemmas about
ordinal, the exat lemma are in urysohn.tex at
line 522.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now every single step has to be proven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Disstributiv law naturals proof
|
|
Such as induction on naturals and addition laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All changes till here are done such that the check of everything.tex will be a success. There are no logic flaws and false can't be proven with everything out of everthing.tex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
