Hi Alexander,

For the second list, did you also restrict yourself to the main part of set.mm ?
BR,
_
Thierry

> Le 3 nov. 2019 à 23:38, 'Alexander van der Vekens' via Metamath 
> <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 1:55:27 PM UTC+1, Norman Megill wrote:
>> 
>> We could add ph to every such hypothesis to make it more general-purpose, 
>> but 99% of the time it wouldn't be needed and would make all other proofs 
>> using it (as well as the theorem itself) slightly longer.  Not to mention 
>> that it would be a huge retrofit to do this throughout set.mm.  I will 
>> concede there may be a few cases where it would be advantageous to do things 
>> other than prove a simple substitution with the hypothesis, but overall I 
>> believe it is rare and does not justify adding ph everywhere.
>> 
> I tried to identify all the theorems in set.mm (excluding the mathboxes) 
> which would be concerned - I found about 70 of them (see attachment 
> deduct_th_eq_hyp.txt). On the other hand, there are about 50 theorema in 
> deduction form having the form $e |- ( ( ph /\ x = ... ) -> ... ) $. (see 
> attachment deduct_th_ph_eq_hyp.txt). So there is no big difference. 
> Therefore, I still would propose to recommend to use the form $e |- ( ( ph /\ 
> x = ... ) -> ... ) $. in deduction style. Already existing theorems need not 
> to be rewritten (by the way, many of them have no "d" at the end..).
>>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Metamath" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/351cfee0-e03b-4d61-b839-694b61641bb0%40googlegroups.com.
> <deduct_th_ph_eq_hyp.txt>
> <deduct_th_eq_hyp.txt>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/F0596879-A317-4BAD-8A73-C27509CDC35F%40gmx.net.

Reply via email to