Makarius
unread,Oct 6, 2016, 8:41:51 AM10/6/16You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Peter Lammich, Edward Pierzchalski, Simon Wimmer, cl-isabe...@lists.cam.ac.uk
On 06/10/16 14:16, Peter Lammich wrote:
>
> for exactly this usecase (induction proofs), I use a custom method
> rprems:
> apply rprems
> also does what you want, without the subgoal overhead. It resolves the
> conclusion with the first premise, even if this premise is of form
> "!!_.[|_|] ==> _".
I just want to point out that the 'subgoal' command has no overhead: on
the contrary, it allows to check proofs compositionally and thus in
parallel. The explicit proof structure is also an advantage for
maintainability.
In some situations, 'subgoal' cannot be used, though. One example are
schematic goal states. Then one really needs to go back to old-style
tactical means.
Makarius