On 27/04/2020 13:08, Lawrence Paulson wrote:
I have only recently proved a result of this sort, and thinking back, the need
to write out
!x y. P x & P y —> x=y
has always been one of my pet bugbears.
That does indeed crop up from time to time. Tobias
I don’t think a fancy symbol is needed for something that will be fairly lightly used however.
LarryOn 27 Apr 2020, at 11:58, Tobias Nipkow <[email protected]> wrote: I don't recall feeling the need for it, although I may just be too used to what we have to conceive of notions beyond. But I have (almost) never seen it anywhere else. There are of course the counting quantifiers. Having said that, I wouldn't object to an "at most one" quantifier provided it has a decent syntax. See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1205464/quantifier-for-there-is-at-most-one
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman46.in.tum.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
