From 8b767a5aac248892fb1a5ed99aca6699f5f2b317 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Josh Chen
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 15:02:43 +0200
Subject: Rename

---
 tests/Schematic_subgoal.thy | 64 --------------------------------------------
 tests/Subgoal.thy           | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 tests/Schematic_subgoal.thy
 create mode 100644 tests/Subgoal.thy

(limited to 'tests')

diff --git a/tests/Schematic_subgoal.thy b/tests/Schematic_subgoal.thy
deleted file mode 100644
index 5f20eac..0000000
--- a/tests/Schematic_subgoal.thy
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
-theory Schematic_subgoal
-  imports "../HoTT"
-begin
-
-text "
-  \<open>subgoal\<close> converts schematic variables to fixed free variables, making it unsuitable for use in \<open>schematic_goal\<close> proofs.
-
-  This is a problem for syntheses which need to use induction (elimination rules), as these often have to be applied to fixed variables, while keeping any schematic variables intact.
-"
-
-schematic_goal rpathcomp_synthesis:
-  assumes "A: U(i)"
-  shows "?a: \<Prod>x:A. \<Prod>y:A. x =\<^sub>A y \<rightarrow> (\<Prod>z:A. y =\<^sub>A z \<rightarrow> x =\<^sub>A z)"
-
-text "
-  Try (and fail) to synthesize the constant for path composition, following the proof of \<open>rpathcomp_type\<close> below.
-"
-
-apply (rule Prod_intro)
-prefer 2
-  apply (rule Prod_intro)
-  prefer 2
-    apply (rule Prod_intro)
-    prefer 2
-      subgoal 123 for x y p
-      apply (rule Equal_elim[where ?x=x and ?y=y and ?A=A])
-      oops
-
-
-lemma rpathcomp_type:
-  assumes "A: U(i)"
-  shows "rpathcomp: \<Prod>x:A. \<Prod>y:A. x =\<^sub>A y \<rightarrow> (\<Prod>z:A. y =\<^sub>A z \<rightarrow> x =\<^sub>A z)"
-unfolding rpathcomp_def
-apply standard
-prefer 2
-  subgoal premises 1 for x  \<comment> \<open>\<open>subgoal\<close> is the proof script version of \<open>fix-assume-show\<close>.\<close>
-  apply standard
-  prefer 2
-    subgoal premises 2 for y
-    apply standard
-    prefer 2
-      subgoal premises 3 for p
-      apply (rule Equal_elim[where ?x=x and ?y=y and ?A=A])
-        \<comment> \<open>specifying \<open>?A=A\<close> is crucial here to prevent the next \<open>subgoal\<close> from binding a schematic ?A which should be instantiated to \<open>A\<close>.\<close>
-      prefer 2
-        apply standard
-        prefer 2
-          apply (rule Prod_intro)
-          prefer 2
-            subgoal premises 4 for u z q
-            apply (rule Equal_elim[where ?x=u and ?y=z])
-            apply (simple lems: assms 4)
-            done
-          apply (simple lems: assms 1 2 3)
-      done
-    apply (simple lems: assms 1 2)
-    done
-  apply fact
-  done
-apply fact
-done
-
-
-end
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/tests/Subgoal.thy b/tests/Subgoal.thy
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2226f08
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/Subgoal.thy
@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+theory Subgoal
+  imports "../HoTT"
+begin
+
+text "
+  \<open>subgoal\<close> converts schematic variables to fixed free variables, making it unsuitable for use in \<open>schematic_goal\<close> proofs.
+  This is the same thing as being unable to start a "sub-schematic goal" inside an ongoing proof.
+
+  This is a problem for syntheses which need to use induction (elimination rules), as these often have to be applied to fixed variables, while keeping any schematic variables intact.
+"
+
+schematic_goal rpathcomp_synthesis:
+  assumes "A: U(i)"
+  shows "?a: \<Prod>x:A. \<Prod>y:A. x =\<^sub>A y \<rightarrow> (\<Prod>z:A. y =\<^sub>A z \<rightarrow> x =\<^sub>A z)"
+
+text "
+  Try (and fail) to synthesize the constant for path composition, following the proof of \<open>rpathcomp_type\<close> below.
+"
+
+apply (rule Prod_intro)
+prefer 2
+  apply (rule Prod_intro)
+  prefer 2
+    apply (rule Prod_intro)
+    prefer 2
+      subgoal 123 for x y p
+      apply (rule Equal_elim[where ?x=x and ?y=y and ?A=A])
+      oops
+
+
+lemma rpathcomp_type:
+  assumes "A: U(i)"
+  shows "rpathcomp: \<Prod>x:A. \<Prod>y:A. x =\<^sub>A y \<rightarrow> (\<Prod>z:A. y =\<^sub>A z \<rightarrow> x =\<^sub>A z)"
+unfolding rpathcomp_def
+apply standard
+prefer 2
+  subgoal premises 1 for x  \<comment> \<open>\<open>subgoal\<close> is the proof script version of \<open>fix-assume-show\<close>.\<close>
+  apply standard
+  prefer 2
+    subgoal premises 2 for y
+    apply standard
+    prefer 2
+      subgoal premises 3 for p
+      apply (rule Equal_elim[where ?x=x and ?y=y and ?A=A])
+        \<comment> \<open>specifying \<open>?A=A\<close> is crucial here to prevent the next \<open>subgoal\<close> from binding a schematic ?A which should be instantiated to \<open>A\<close>.\<close>
+      prefer 2
+        apply standard
+        prefer 2
+          apply (rule Prod_intro)
+          prefer 2
+            subgoal premises 4 for u z q
+            apply (rule Equal_elim[where ?x=u and ?y=z])
+            apply (simple lems: assms 4)
+            done
+          apply (simple lems: assms 1 2 3)
+      done
+    apply (simple lems: assms 1 2)
+    done
+  apply fact
+  done
+apply fact
+done
+
+
+end
\ No newline at end of file
-- 
cgit v1.2.3