Related
I've been working with Isabelle/HOL for a few months now, but I've been unable to figure out the exact intention of the use of _tac.
Specifically, I'm talking about cases vs case_tac and induct vs indut_tac (although it would be nice to know the meaning of tac in general, since I'm also using other methods such as cut_tac).
I've noticed I can't use cases or induct using apply with ⋀-bound variables, but I can if it's an structured proof. Why?
An example of this:
lemma "¬(∀x. ¬(P x)) ⟹ ∃x. P x"
apply (rule ccontr)
apply (erule notE)
apply (rule allI)
apply (case_tac "P x")
apply (erule notE)
apply (erule exI)
apply assumption
done
On the other hand, another difference I've noticed between induct and induct_tac is that I can use double induction with the latter, but not with the former. Again, I'm clueless why.
Thanks in advance.
*_tac are built-in tactics used in apply-scripts. In particular, case_tac and induct_tac have been basically superseded by the cases and induction proof methods in Isabelle/Isar. As you mentioned, case_tac and induct_tac can handle ⋀-bound variables. However, this is quite fragile, since their names are often generated automatically and may change when Isabelle changes (of course, you could use rename_tac to choose fixed names). That's one of the reasons why nowadays structured proof methods are preferred to unstructured tactic scripts. Now, back to your example: In order to be able to use cases, you can introduce a structured block as follows:
lemma "¬(∀x. ¬(P x)) ⟹ ∃x. P x"
apply (rule ccontr)
apply (erule notE)
proof (intro allI)
fix x
assume "∄x. P x"
then show "¬ P x"
apply (cases "P x")
apply (erule notE)
apply (erule exI)
apply assumption
done
qed
As you can see, structured proofs are typically verbose but much more readable than linear apply-scripts.
If you're still curious about the "double-induction" issue, an example would be very welcome. Finally, if you want to learn more about structured proofs using the Isabelle/Isar language environment, I'd strongly suggest you read this tutorial on Isabelle/HOL and The Isabelle/Isar Reference Manual for more detailed information.
I was playing around with an example from the Isabelle/HOL tutorial to get a better understanding on the correspondence between Isar and Tactics proofs.
This is a version which works:
lemma rtrancl_converseD: "(x,y) ∈ (r ^-1 )^* ⟹ (y,x) ∈ r^* "
proof (induct y rule: rtrancl_induct)
case base
then show ?case ..
next case (step y z)
then have "(z, y) ∈ r" using rtrancl_converseD by simp
with `(y,x)∈ r^*` show "(z,x) ∈ r^*" using [[unify_trace_failure]]
apply (subgoal_tac "1=(1::nat)")
apply (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
apply simp_all
done
qed
I want to instantiate converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl which proofs (?a, ?b) ∈ ?r ⟹ (?b, ?c) ∈ ?r^* ⟹ (?a, ?c) ∈ ?r^* .
But without the seemingly nonsensical apply (subgoal_tac "1=(1::nat)") line this errors with
Clash: r =/= Transitive_Closure.rtrancl
Failed to apply proof method⌂:
using this:
(y, x) ∈ r^*
(z, y) ∈ r
goal (1 subgoal):
1. (z, x) ∈ r^*
If I fully instantiate the rule apply (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl[of z y r x]) this becomes Clash: z__ =/= ya__.
This leaves me with three questions: Why does this specific case break? How can I fix it? And how can I figure out what went wrong in these cases since I can't really understand what the unify_trace_failure message wants to tell me.
rule-tactics are usually sensitive to the order of premises. The order of premises in converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl and in your proof state don't match. Switching the order of premises in the proof state using rotate_tac will make them match the rule, so that you can directly apply fact like this:
... show "(z,x) ∈ r^*"
apply (rotate_tac)
apply (fact converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
done
Or, if you want to include some kind of rule tactic, this would look like this:
apply (rotate_tac)
apply (erule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
apply (assumption)
(I personally don't use apply scripts ever in my everyday work. So apply-style gurus might know more elegant ways of handling this kind of situation. ;) )
Regarding your 1=(1::nat) / simp_all fix:
The whole goal can directly be solved by simp_all. So, attempts with adding stuff like 1=1 probably did not really tell you a lot about how much the other methods contributed to solving the proof.
However, the additional assumption seems to actually help Isabelle match converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl correctly. (Don't ask me why!) So, one could indeed circumvent the problem by adding this spurious assumption and then eliminating it with refl again like:
apply (subgoal_tac "1=(1::nat)")
apply (erule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
apply (assumption)
apply (rule refl)
This does not look particularly elegant, of course.
The [[unify_trace_failure]] probably only really helps if one is familiar with the internal workings of Nipkow's higher-order unification algorithm. (I'm not.) I think the hint for the future here would really be that one must look closely at the order of premises for some tactics (rather than at the unifier debug output).
I found an explanation in the Isar reference 6.4.3 .
The with b1..bn command is equivalent to from b1..bn and this, i.e. it enters the proof chaining mode which adds them as (structured) assumptions to proof methods.
Basic proof methods (such as rule) expect multiple facts to be given
in their proper order, corresponding to a prefix of the premises of
the rule involved. Note that positions may be easily skipped using
something like from _ and a and b, for example. This involves the
trivial rule PROP ψ =⇒ PROP ψ, which is bound in Isabelle/Pure as “_”
(underscore).
Automated methods (such as simp or auto) just insert any given facts
before their usual operation. Depending on the kind of procedure
involved, the order of facts is less significant here.
Given the information about the 'with' translation and that rule expects chained facts in order, we could try to flip the chained facts. And indeed this works:
from this and `(y,x)∈ r^*` show "(z,x) ∈ r^*"
by (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
I think "6.4.3 Fundamental methods and attributes" is also relevant because it describes how the basic methods interact with incoming facts. Notably, the '-' noop which is sometimes used when starting proofs turns forward chaining into assumptions on the goal.
with `(y,x)∈ r^*` show "(z,x) ∈ r^*"
apply -
apply (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl; assumption)
done
This works because the first apply consumes all chained facts so the second apply is pure backwards chaining. This is also why the subgoal_tac or rotate_tac worked, but only if they are in seperate apply commands.
I am trying to prove the following basic theorem about the existence of the inverse function of a bijective function (to learn theorem-proving with Isabelle/HOL):
For any set S and its identity map 1_S, α:S→T is bijective iff there
exists a map β: T→S such that βα=1_S and αβ=1_S.
Below is what I have so far after some attempts to define relevant things including functions and their inverses. But I am pretty stuck and couldn't make much progress due to my lack of understanding of Isabelle and/or Isar.
theory Test
imports Main
"HOL.Relation"
begin
lemma bij_iff_ex_identity : "bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃ g. g∘f = restrict id B ∧ f∘g = restrict id A)"
unfolding bij_betw_def inj_on_def restrict_def iffI
proof
let ?g = "restrict (λ y. (if f x = y then x else undefined)) B"
assume "(∀x∈A. ∀y∈A. f x = f y ⟶ x = y)"
have "?g∘f = restrict id B"
proof
(* cannot prove this *)
end
In above, I try to give an explicit existential witness (i.e. the inverse function g of the original function f). I have several issues about the proof.
whether the concepts are defined right (functions, inverse functions etc.) in Isabelle terms.
how to expand the relevant definitions and then simplify them with function applications. I have followed some Isabelle (2021) examples/tutorials about both the apply-style simp, and structured style Isar proof but couldn't use the Isar proof fluently. Once I started the proof command, I don't know how to simp or move any further.
Isar has the new way of assumes ... shows ... for stating the theorem. Is there similar support for proving iff's (⟷) like the example above? Without it, there is no access to assms etc., and is it necessary to assume everything except the conclusion during the proof.
Can someone help explain how the above existential proof about inverse function can be accomplished?
lemma bij_iff_ex_identity : "bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃ g. g∘f = restrict id B ∧ f∘g = restrict id A)"
I think this is not exactly what you want an I am doubtful that it is true. g∘f = restrict id B does not mean that g∘f and id are equal on B. It means that the total function g∘f (and there are only total functions in HOL) equals the total function restrict id B. The latter returns id x on x∈B and undefined otherwise. So to make this equality true, g needs to output undefined whenever the input of f is not in B. But how would g know that!
If you want to use restrict, you could write restrict (g∘f) B = restrict id B. But personally, I would rather go for the simpler (∀x∈B. (g∘f) x = x).
So the corrected theorem would be:
lemma bij_iff_ex_identity : "bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃ g. (∀x∈A. (g∘f) x = x) ∧ (∀y∈B. (f∘g) y = y))"
(Which is still wrong, by the way, as quickcheck tells me in Isabelle/jEdit, see the output window. If A has one element and B is empty, f cannot be a bijection. So the theorem you are attempting is actually mathematically not true. I will not attempt to fix it, but just answer the remaining lines.
unfolding bij_betw_def inj_on_def restrict_def iffI
The iffI here has no effect. Unfolding can only apply theorems of the form A = B (unconditional rewriting rules). iffI is not of that form. (Use thm iffI to see.)
proof
Personally, I don't use the bare form proof but always proof - or proof (some method). Because proof just applies some default method (in this case, equivalent to (rule iffI), so I think it's better to make it explicit. proof - just starts the proof without applying an extra method.
let ?g = "restrict (λ y. (if f x = y then x else undefined)) B"
You have an unbound variable x here. (Note the background color in the IDE.) That is most likely not what you want. Formally, it is allowed, but x will be treated as if it was some arbitrary constant.
Generally, I don't think there is any way to define g in a simple way (i.e., only with quantifiers and function applications and if-then-else). I think the only way to define an inverse (even if you know it exists), is to use the THE operator, because you need to say something like g y is "the" x such that f x = y. (And then later in the proof you will run into a proof obligation that it indeed exists and that it is unique.) See the definition of inv_into in Hilbert_Choice.thy (except it uses SOME not THE). Maybe for starters, try to do the proof just using the existing inv_into constant.
assume "(∀x∈A. ∀y∈A. f x = f y ⟶ x = y)"
All assume commands must have assumptions exactly as the are in the proof goal. You can test whether you wrote it right by just temporarily writing the command show A for A (that's an unprovable goal that would, however, finish the proof, so it tricks Isabelle into checking if it would). If this command does not give an error, you got the assumes right. In your cases, you didn't, it should be (∀x∈A. ∀y∈A. f x = f y ⟶ x = y) ∧ f ' A = B. (' is the backtick symbol here. Markup doesn't let me write it.)
My recommendation: Try the proof with bij instead of bij_betw first. (One direction is in BNF_Fixpoint_Base.o_bij if you want to cheat.)
Once done, you can try to generalize.
I agree with the insightful remarks provided by Dominique Unruh. However, I would like to mention that a theorem that captures the idea underlying the theorem that you are trying to prove already exists in the source code of the main library of Isabelle/HOL. In fact, it exists in at least two different formats: let me name them the traditional Isabelle/HOL format and the canonical FuncSet format. For the former one, see the theorem bij_betw_iff_bijections:
"bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃g. (∀x ∈ A. f x ∈ B ∧ g(f x) = x) ∧ (∀y ∈ B. g y ∈ A ∧ f(g y) = y))"
The situation is a little bit more complicated with FuncSet. There does not seem to exist a single theorem that captures the idea. However, together, the theorems bij_betwI, bij_betw_imp_funcset and inv_into_funcset are nearly equivalent to the theorem that you are trying to state. Let me provide a sketch of how one could express this theorem in a manner that would be considered reasonably canonical in the FuncSet sense (try to prove it yourself):
lemma bij_betw_iff:
shows "bij_betw f A B ⟷
(
∃g.
(∀x. x∈A ⟶ g (f x) = x) ∧
(∀y. y∈B ⟶ f (g y) = y) ∧
f ∈ A → B ∧
g ∈ B → A
)"
sorry
I would also like to repeat the advice given by Dominique Unruh and provide several side remarks:
My recommendation: Try the proof with bij instead of bij_betw first.
Indeed, this is a very good idea. In general, by trying to restrict the problem to explicitly defined sets A and B, instead of working directly with types, you touched upon a topic that is known as relativization in logic. For a mild layman's introduction see, for example, https://leanprover.github.io/logic_and_proof/first_order_logic.html [1], for a slightly more thorough introduction in the context of set theory see [2, chapter 12]. As you have probably noticed by now, it is not that easy to relativize theorems in Isabelle/HOL and requires additional proof effort.
However, there exists an extension of Isabelle/HOL that allows for the automation of the process of the relativization of theorems. For more information about this extension see the article From Types to Sets by Local Type Definition in Higher-Order Logic by Ondřej Kunčar and Andrei Popescu [3]. There also exists a large scale application example of the framework [4]. Independently, I am working on making this extension more user-friendly and very slowly approaching the final stages in my efforts: see https://gitlab.com/user9716869/tts_extension. Thus, in principle, if you know how to use Types-To-Sets and you accept its axioms, then it is sufficient to prove the theorem with bij, e.g.,
"bij f ⟷ (∃g. (∀x. g (f x) = x) ∧ (∀y. f (g y) = y))",
Then, the theorems like
bij_betw_iff_bijections and bij_betw_iff can be synthesized automatically for free upon a click of a button (almost...).
Finally, for completeness, let me offer my own advice with regard to your queries (although, as I mentioned, I agree with everything stated by Dominique Unruh)
how to expand the relevant definitions and then simplify them with
function applications. I have followed some Isabelle (2021)
examples/tutorials about both the apply-style simp, and structured
style Isar proof but couldn't use the Isar proof fluently. Once I
started the proof command, I don't know how to simp or move any
further.
I believe that the best way to learn what you are trying to learn is by following through the exercises in the book Concrete Semantics by Tobias Nipkow and Gerwin Klein [5]. Additionally, I would also look through A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic by Tobias Nipkow et al [6](it is slightly outdated, but I found it to be useful specifically for learning apply-style scripting/direct rule application). By the way, I have mostly self-taught myself Isabelle from these books without any prior experience in formal methods.
Isar has the new way of assumes ... shows ... for stating the theorem.
Is there similar support for proving iff's (⟷) like the example above?
Without it, there is no access to assms etc., and is it necessary to
assume everything except the conclusion during the proof.
I will make the advice given by Dominique Unruh more explicit: use rule iffI or intro iffI for this.
Edit. When you use rule iffI (or similar) to start your structured Isar proof, you need to state your assumptions explicitly for every subgoal (using the assume ... show ... paradigm). However, there is a tool that can generate such boilerplate Isar code automatically. It is called Sketch-and-Explore and you can find it in the directory HOL/ex of the main library of Isabelle/HOL. In this case, all you need to do is to type sketch(rule iffI) and the assume/show paradigm will be generated automatically for every subgoal.
References
Avigad J, Lewis RY, and van Doorn F. Logic and Proof.
Jech T. Set theory. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. (Pure and applied mathematics, a series of monographs and textbooks).
Kunčar O, Popescu A. From Types to Sets by Local Type Definition in Higher-Order Logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 2019;62(2):237–60.
Immler F, Zhan B. Smooth Manifolds and Types to Sets for Linear Algebra in Isabelle/HOL. In: 8th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs. New York: ACM; 2019. p. 65–77. (CPP 2019).
Nipkow T, Klein G. Concrete Semantics with Isabelle/HOL. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2017. (http://concrete-semantics.org/)
Nipkow T, Paulson LC, Wenzel M. A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2017.
I'm an Isabelle newbie, and I'm a little (actually, a lot) confused about the relationship between ⋀ and ∀, and between ⟹ and ⟶.
I have the following goal (which is a highly simplified version of something that I've ended up with in a real proof):
⟦⋀x. P x ⟹ P z; P y⟧ ⟹ P z
which I want to prove by specialising x with y to get ⟦P y ⟹ P z; P y⟧ ⟹ P z, and then using modus ponens. This works for proving the very similar-looking:
⟦∀x. P x ⟶ P z; P y⟧ ⟹ P z
but I can't get it to work for the goal above.
Is there a way of converting the former goal into the latter? If not, is this because they are logically different statements, in which case can someone help me understand the difference?
That the two premises !!x. P x ==> P y and ALL x. P x --> P y are logically equivalent can be shown by the following proof
lemma
"(⋀x. P x ⟹ P y) ≡ (Trueprop (∀x. P x ⟶ P y))"
by (simp add: atomize_imp atomize_all)
When I tried the same kind of reasoning for your example proof I ran into a problem however. I intended to do the following proof
lemma
"⟦⋀x. P x ⟹ P z; P y⟧ ⟹ P z"
apply (subst (asm) atomize_imp)
apply (unfold atomize_all)
apply (drule spec [of _ y])
apply (erule rev_mp)
apply assumption
done
but at unfold atomize_all I get
Failed to apply proof method:
When trying to explicitly instantiate the lemma I get a more clear error message, i.e.,
apply (unfold atomize_all [of "λx. P x ⟶ P z"])
yields
Type unification failed: Variable 'a::{} not of sort type
This I find strange, since as far as I know every type variable should be of sort type. We can solve this issue by adding an explicit sort constraint:
lemma
"⟦⋀x::_::type. P x ⟹ P z; P y⟧ ⟹ P z"
Then the proof works as shown above.
Cutting a long story short. I usually work with Isar structured proofs instead of apply scripts. Then such issues are often avoided. For your statement I would actually do
lemma
"⟦⋀x. P x ⟹ P z; P y⟧ ⟹ P z"
proof -
assume *: "⋀x. P x ⟹ P z"
and **: "P y"
from * [OF **] show ?thesis .
qed
Or maybe more idiomatic
lemma
assumes *: "⋀x. P x ⟹ P z"
and **: "P y"
shows "P z"
using * [OF **] .
C.Sternagel answered your title question "How?", which satisfied your last sentence, but I go ahead and fill in some details based on his answer, to try to "help [you] understand the difference".
It can be confusing that there is ==> and -->, meta-implication and HOL-implication, and that they both have the properties of logical implication. (I don't say much about !! and !, meta-all and HOL-all, because what's said about ==> and --> can be mostly be transferred to them.)
(NOTE: I convert graphical characters to equivalent ASCII when I can, to make sure they display correctly in all browsers.)
First, I give some references:
[1] Isabelle/Isar Reference manual.
[2] HOL/HOL.thy
[3] Logic in Computer Science, by Huth and Ryan
[4] Wiki sequent entry.
[5] Wiki intuitionistic logic entry.
If you understand a few basics, there's nothing that confusing about the fact that there is both ==> and -->. Much of the confusion departs, and what's left is just the work of digging through the details about what particular source statements mean, such as the formula of C.Sternagel's first lemma.
"(!!x. P x ==> P y) == (Trueprop (!x. P x --> P y))"
C.Sternagel stopped taking the time to give me important answers, but the formula he gives you above is similar to one he gave me a while ago, to convince me that all free variables in a formula are universally quantified.
Short answer: The difference between ==> and --> is that ==> (somewhat) plays the part of the turnstile symbol, |-, of a non-generalized sequent in which there is only one conclusion on the right-hand side. That is, ==>, the meta-logic implication operator of Isabelle/Pure, is used to define the Isabelle/HOL implication object-logic operator -->, as shown by impI in the following axiomatization in HOL.thy [2].
(*line 56*)
typedecl bool
judgment
Trueprop :: "bool => prop"
(*line 166*)
axiomatization where
impI: "(P ==> Q) ==> P-->Q" and
mp: "[| P-->Q; P |] ==> Q" and
iff: "(P-->Q) --> (Q-->P) --> (P=Q)" and
True_or_False: "(P=True) | (P=False)"
Above, I show the definition of three other axioms: mp (modus ponuns), iff, and True_or_False (law of excluded middle). I do that to repeatedly show how ==> is used to define the axioms and operators of the HOL logic. I also threw in the judgement to show that some of the sequent vocabulary is used in the language Isar.
I also show the axiom True_or_False to show that the Isabelle/HOL logic has an axiom which Isabelle/Pure doesn't have, the law of excluded middle [5]. This is huge in answering your question "what is the difference?"
It was a recent answer by A.Lochbihler that finally gave meaning, for me, to "intuitionistic" [5]. I had repeatedly seen "intuitionistic" in the Isabelle literature, but it didn't sink in.
If you can understand the differences in the next source, then you can see that there's a big difference between ==> and -->, and between types prop and bool, where prop is the type of meta-logic propositions, as opposed to bool, which is the type of the HOL logic proposition. In the HOL object-logic, False implies any proposition Q::bool. However, False::bool doesn't imply any proposition Q::prop.
The type prop is a big part of the meta-logic team !!, ==>, and ==.
theorem "(!!P. P::bool) == Trueprop (False::bool)"
by(rule equal_intr_rule, auto)
theorem HOL_False_meta_implies_any_prop_Q:
"(!!P. P::bool) ==> PROP Q"
(*Currently, trying by(auto) will hang my machine due to blast, which is know
to be a problem, and supposedly is fixed in the current repository. With
`Auto methods` on in the options, it tries `auto`, thus it will hang it.*)
oops
theorem HOL_False_meta_implies_any_bool_Q:
"(!!P. P::bool) ==> Q::bool"
by(rule meta_allE)
theorem HOL_False_obj_implies_any_bool_Q:
"(!P. P::bool) --> Q::bool"
by(auto)
When you understand that Isabelle/Pure meta-logic ==> is used to define the HOL logic, and other differences, such as that the meta-logic is weaker because of no excluded middle, then you understand that there are significant differences between the meta-operators, !!, ==>, and ==, in comparison to the HOL object-logic operators, !, -->, and =.
From here, I put in more details, partly to convince any expert that I'm not totally abusing the word sequent, where my use here is based primarily on how it's used in reference [3, Huth and Ryan].
Attempting to not write a book
I throw in some quotes and references to show that there's a relationship between sequents and ==>.
From my research, I can't see that the word "sequent" is standardized. As far as I can tell, in [3.pg 5], Huth and Ryan use "sequent" to mean a sequent which has only has one conclusion on the right-hand side.
...This intention we denote by
phi1, phi2, ..., phiN |- psi
This expression is called a sequent; it is valid if a proof can be found.
A more narrow definition of sequent, in which the right-hand side has only one conclusion, matches up very nicely with the use of ==>.
We can blame L.Paulson for confusing us by separating the meta-logic from the object-logic, though we can thank him for giving us a larger logical playground.
Maybe to keep from clashing with the common definition of a sequent, as in [4, Wiki], he uses the phrase natural deduction sequent calculus in various places in the literature. In any case, the use of ==> is completely related to implementing natural deduction rules in the logic of Isabelle/HOL.
Even with generalized sequents, L.Paulson prefers the ==> notation:
Logic and Proof course 2012-13
Course materials: see slides for his generalized sequent calculus notation
You asked about differences. I throw in some source related to C.Sternagel's answer, along with the impI axiomatization again:
(*line 166*)
axiomatization where
impI: "(P ==> Q) ==> P-->Q"
(*706*)
lemma --"atomize_all [atomize]:"
"(!!x. P x) == Trueprop (ALL x. P x)"
by(rule atomize_all)
(*715*)
lemma --"atomize_imp [atomize]:"
"(A ==> B) == Trueprop (A --> B)"
by(rule atomize_imp)
(*line 304*)
lemma --"allI:"
assumes "!!x::'a. P(x)"
shows "ALL x. P(x)"
by(auto simp only: assms allI
I put impI in structured proof format:
lemma impI_again:
assumes "P ==> Q"
shows "P --> Q"
by(simp add: assms)
Now, consider ==> to be the use of the sequent turnstile, and shows to be the sequent notation horizontal bar, then you have the following sequent:
P |- Q
-------
P --> Q
This is the natural deduction implication introduction rule, as the axiom name says, impI (Cornell Lecture 15).
The Big Guys have been on top of all of this for a long time. See [1, Section 2.1, page 27] for an overview of !!, ==>, and ==. In particular, it says
The Pure logic [38, 39] is an intuitionistic fragment of higher-order logic
[13]. In type-theoretic parlance, there are three levels of lambda-calculus with
corresponding arrows =>/!!/==>`...
One general significance of the statement is that in the use of Isabelle/HOL, you are using two logics, a meta-logic and an object-logic, where those two terms come from L.Paulson, and where "intuitionistic" is a key defining point of the meta-logic.
See also [1, Section 9.4.1, Simulating sequents by natural deduction, pg 206]. According to M.Wenzel on the IsaUsersList, L.Paulson wrote this section. On page 205, Paulson first takes the definition of a sequent to be the generalized definition. On page 206, he then shows how you can line up one type of sequent with the use of ==>, which is by negating every proposition on the right-hand side of a sequent, except for one of them.
That, by all appearances, is a horn clause, which I know nothing about.
It seems obvious to me that using ==> is the use of a limited form of sequents. In any event, that's how I think of it, and thinking that way has given me an understanding of the differences between ==> and -->, along with the fact that the meta-logic has no excluded middle.
If A.Lochbhiler wouldn't have pointed out the absence of an excluded middle, I wouldn't have seen an important difference of what's possible with ==>, and what's possible with -->.
Maybe C.Sternagel will start back again to give me some of his important answers.
Please pardon the long answer.
Others have already explained some of the reasons behind the difference between meta-logic and logic, but missed the simple tactic apply atomize:
lemma "⟦⋀(x::'a). P x ⟹ P z ; P y⟧ ⟹ P z"
apply atomize
which yields the goal:
⟦ ∀x. P x ⟶ P z; P y ⟧ ⟹ P z
as desired.
(The additional type constraint ⋀(x::'a) is required for the reasons mentioned by chris.)
There is a lot of text already, so just a few brief notes:
Isabelle/Pure is minimal-higher order logic with the main connectives ⋀ and ⟹ to lay out Natural Deduction rules in a declarative way. The system knows how to compose them by basic means, e.g. in Isar proofs, proof methods like rule, attributes like OF.
Isabelle/HOL is full higher-order logic, with the full set of predicate logic connectives, e.g. ∀ ∃ ∧ ∨ ¬ ⟶ ⟷, and much more library material. Canonical introduction rules like allI, allE, exI, exE etc. for these connectives explain formally how the reasoning works wrt. the Pure framework. HOL ∀ and ⟶ somehow correspond to Pure ⋀ and ⟹, but they are of different category and should not be thrown into the same box.
Note that apart from the basic thm command to print such theorems, it occasionally helps to use print_statement to get an Isar reading of these Natural Deduction reasoning forms.
Having recently learnt how to drop an unwanted premise in an apply-style proof, I now wonder how to drop an unneeded variable. That is, suppose I have the goal
1. !!x y z. A ⟹ B ⟹ C
where y does not appear in A, B or C. How can I transform it to the following?
1. !!x z. A ⟹ B ⟹ C
triv_forall_equality is indeed the Pure rule to strip redundant parameters. There is also prune_params_tac to do that as ML tactic, it operates on all subgoals. Note that the latter is not exposed as Isar proof method, since it is hardly ever required in practice: tools like simp and auto already include it by default.
Note that the approach via (simp only: triv_forall_equality) works in many situations, but there is also a snag: the only modifier in Isabelle/HOL does a bit more than "only" using the given simp rules. It includes things like arithmetic solvers, which might cause surprise or confusion some situations.
To imitate prune_params_tac precisely within the Isar method language, you could use (unfold triv_forall_equality) although there is a tiny conceptual snag: its use of arbitrary rewriting instead of just infolding equations c = t is just a historical accident.
A simple:
apply simp
will do the trick. If you don't want to perform any other transformations on the goal state, you can try:
apply (simp only: triv_forall_equality)
which will remove the unnecessary meta-quantifiers, but otherwise not modify the goal state.