I have now a fairly complicated theory hierarchy and its easy to mistakenly use a name which has already been used somewhere.
I did this today and the resulting failure mode seemed rather odd, so I wondered whether this is how it is supposed to be or a sign of something amiss. I defined the constant "Set" in a theory of miscellanea ("rbjmisc") high up in my hierarchy, forgetting that this constant had already been used elsewhere. It turned out that the previous use was in one of the few theories which did not name rbjmisc as a parent, so the second definition of Set went through OK, in theory "nfu_f". Then another theory is built which has both nfu_f and rbjmisc as parents, causing a clash of names. No complaint when the two parents are first nominated. I just find that later one of my proofs fails. When I rename the second version of Set, the proof goes through OK. In principle this might all be OK, since the two definitions have disjoint types, but I didn't think ProofPower allowed this kind of thing. Is it supposed to be possible to get two definitions of the same constant into scope in this way? (or did I only have the wrong one in scope) Roger Jones _______________________________________________ Proofpower mailing list Proofpower@lemma-one.com http://lemma-one.com/mailman/listinfo/proofpower_lemma-one.com