doc-src/TutorialI/Rules/rules.tex
changeset 11411 c315dda16748
parent 11406 2b17622e1929
child 11417 499435b4084e
equal deleted inserted replaced
11410:b3b61ea9632c 11411:c315dda16748
   853 \index{substitution|)}
   853 \index{substitution|)}
   854 
   854 
   855 
   855 
   856 \section{Quantifiers}
   856 \section{Quantifiers}
   857 
   857 
   858 \index{quantifiers|(}\index{quantifiers!universal|(}%
   858 \index{quantifiers!universal|(}%
   859 Quantifiers require formalizing syntactic substitution and the notion of 
   859 Quantifiers require formalizing syntactic substitution and the notion of 
   860 arbitrary value.  Consider the universal quantifier.  In a logic
   860 arbitrary value.  Consider the universal quantifier.  In a logic
   861 book, its introduction  rule looks like this: 
   861 book, its introduction  rule looks like this: 
   862 \[ \infer{\forall x.\,P}{P} \]
   862 \[ \infer{\forall x.\,P}{P} \]
   863 Typically, a proviso written in English says that $x$ must not
   863 Typically, a proviso written in English says that $x$ must not
  1033 Prove the lemma
  1033 Prove the lemma
  1034 \[ \exists x.\, P\conj Q(x)\Imp P\conj(\exists x.\, Q(x)). \]
  1034 \[ \exists x.\, P\conj Q(x)\Imp P\conj(\exists x.\, Q(x)). \]
  1035 \emph{Hint}: the proof is similar 
  1035 \emph{Hint}: the proof is similar 
  1036 to the one just above for the universal quantifier. 
  1036 to the one just above for the universal quantifier. 
  1037 \end{exercise}
  1037 \end{exercise}
  1038 \index{quantifiers|)}\index{quantifiers!existential|)}
  1038 \index{quantifiers!existential|)}
  1039 
  1039 
  1040 
  1040 
  1041 \subsection{Renaming an Assumption: {\tt\slshape rename_tac}}
  1041 \subsection{Renaming an Assumption: {\tt\slshape rename_tac}}
  1042 
  1042 
  1043 \index{assumptions!renaming|(}\index{*rename_tac (method)|(}%
  1043 \index{assumptions!renaming|(}\index{*rename_tac (method)|(}%