-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proof checker fix #183
Proof checker fix #183
Conversation
…ifiers file, except for those with equality
… Correct Tableau prover accordingly.
if ( | ||
isSubset(ref(t1).right, b.right + phiImpPsi) && | ||
isSubset(ref(t2).right, b.right + psiImpPhi) && | ||
isSubset(b.right, ref(t1).right union ref(t2).right + phiIffPsi) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was adapting this to basic step tactics, and noticed that this is perhaps too restrictive? We should have a more uniform policy on where and how much we allow weakening.
It is perhaps enough to check that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe, but it's the same semantic as what we had. In general we don't permit arbitrary weakening in non-Weakening proof steps.
These changes also need to simultaneously be propagated to the |
Adapt Proof Checker Fixes to Basic Step Tactics
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for merging my PR. LGTM now. I suppose you'll take care of the merge conflict.
Thank you :) |
To merge after #181. Fixes #182