[isabelle-dev] Towards the Isabelle2017 release - Complete Distributive Lattice
hupel at in.tum.de
Sun Aug 27 17:29:30 CEST 2017
it's probably easiest to send a patch containing your changes to this mailing list. (Alternatively, a copy of all the files you changed.) Some Isabelle committer can then push this to the testboard which will run the whole AFP.
On 27 August 2017 16:59:44 CEST, Viorel Preoteasa <viorel.preoteasa at aalto.fi> wrote:
>I managed to integrate the new complete distributive lattice into HOL
>The changes are these:
> - replaced the complete_distrib_lattice with the new stronger version.
> - moved some proofs about complete_distrib_lattice and some
>instantiations to Hilbert_Choice
> - added all results complete_distrib_lattice, including instantiations
>of set, fun that uses uses Hilbert choice.
> - new proofs that finite_3 and finite_4 are complete_distrib_lattice.
> - I added here the classes finite_lattice and finite_distrib_lattice
>and proved that they are complete. This simplified quite much the
>that finite_3 and finite_4 are complete_distrib_lattice.
> - new proof that predicates are complete_distrib_lattice.
>I compiled HOL in Isabelle2017-RC0 using
>isabelle build -v -c HOL
>and I got:
>Timing HOL (2 threads, 266.231s elapsed time, 487.094s cpu time,
>GC time, factor 1.83)
>Finished HOL (0:04:26 elapsed time)
>Finished at Sun Aug 27 17:41:30 GMT+3 2017
>0:04:37 elapsed time
>But I don't now how to go from here to have these changes into
>There is also AFP. If there are instantiations of
>complete_distrib_lattice, then most probably they will fail.
>One simple solution in this case could be to keep also the
>old complete_distrib_lattice as complete_pseudo_distrib_lattice.
>On 8/26/2017 3:06 PM, Lawrence Paulson wrote:
>>> On 25 Aug 2017, at 20:14, Viorel Preoteasa
><viorel.preoteasa at aalto.fi
>>> <mailto:viorel.preoteasa at aalto.fi>> wrote:
>>> One possible solution:
>>> Add the new class in Complete_Lattice.thy, replacing the existing
>>> Prove the instantiations and the complete_linearord subclass later
>>> in Hilbert_Choice.
>>> On the other hand, it seems inconvenient to have the Hilbert Choice
>>> to depend on so many other theories.
>> I’d prefer this provided the instantiations aren’t needed earlier.
>> The delay in the introduction of the Axiom of Choice is partly
>> historical, but it’s worth noting how much of HOL can be developed
>> without it.
>isabelle-dev mailing list
>isabelle-dev at in.tum.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the isabelle-dev