[isabelle-dev] Typing problem in autogenerated axiom

[Andreas Schropp]

Florian Haftmann wrote:
>> Perhaps this is debatable, as one can always prove nonemptyness of
>> arbitrary types via hidden variables:
>>
>> definition
>>  metaex :: "('a::{} => prop) => prop"
>> where
>>  "metaex P == (!! Q. (!! x. PROP (P x) ==> PROP Q) ==> PROP Q)"
>>
>> lemma meta_nonempty : "PROP metaex (% x::'a::{}. x == x)"
>> unfolding metaex_def
>> proof -
>>  fix Q
>>  assume H: "(!!x::'a. x == x ==> PROP Q)"
>>  have A: "y::'a::{} == y ==> PROP Q" by(rule H)
>>  have B: "y::'a::{} == y" by(rule Pure.reflexive)
>>  show "PROP Q" by(rule A[OF B])
>>  qed
>>     
>
> Indeed it is the other way round: the meta theory of HOL (also the
> minimal HOL of Pure) demands non-emptiness of types.  Postulating an
> unspecified constants of an arbitrary type is always admissible.
>   

Yes, but why is undefined only declared for HOL types then?
This is of course only one halve of the truth: sort constraints don't 
matter in the kernel and thus undefined can be used on any type, but not 
"officially" by users.
And more generally: why does axiomatization not do the strip_sorts 
normalization?

All this leads to strangeness in the HOL->ZF translation, where I have 
to introduce a fake constant in ZF to be the image of undefined on 
non-HOL-types.

> 	Florian
>
>