Open tirix opened 1 year ago
this one is really interesting. I'm going to look into it
Hi @tirix ,
how is that the proof for ~ragperp does not list
$d ph u
that should be required by ralrimivva at step 65 ?
Am I missing something simple, here?
Thanks in advance Glauco
how is that the proof for ~ragperp does not list
$d ph u
As I expected, mmj2 also adds
$d ph u
So the reason why not all distinct variables declarations were set is probably the following: to start with the proof, I used the "$get-theorem" command, which works fine, except that it does not add those distinct variables.
I probably added some, but not all, when I started working on splitting the proof.
It looks like you already have a correction for that special case, that's great!
I mean, the
$d ph u
seems to be missing in the set.mm file, but it validates, so the statement must be in an outer scope.
Is this the case? Can you find it in an outer scope?
Oh I see. I'll check later.
Ok, so after careful check I can confirm that the $d ph u
is indeed present in the frame, just above~ isperp
. The website seems to miss it when it renders, I think that's a bug of the website.
Interestingly, I have not found in either metamath-exe or metamath-knife any option to display the distinct variables list for a given theorem.
This is an extract of the errors I get when trying to work on
~footex
:It's probably not necessary to fix this issue, it's due to a theorem which also messes up with metamath-exe, but I wanted to log it here anyway.