doc-src/TutorialI/Recdef/Induction.thy
changeset 10971 6852682eaf16
parent 10795 9e888d60d3e5
child 11159 07b13770c4d6
--- a/doc-src/TutorialI/Recdef/Induction.thy	Wed Jan 24 11:59:15 2001 +0100
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Recdef/Induction.thy	Wed Jan 24 12:29:10 2001 +0100
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 equations) are simplification rules, we might like to prove something about
 our function. Since the function is recursive, the natural proof principle is
 again induction. But this time the structural form of induction that comes
-with datatypes is unlikely to work well---otherwise we could have defined the
+with datatypes is unlikely to work well --- otherwise we could have defined the
 function by \isacommand{primrec}. Therefore \isacommand{recdef} automatically
 proves a suitable induction rule $f$@{text".induct"} that follows the
 recursion pattern of the particular function $f$. We call this
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
 \end{quote}\index{*induct_tac}%
 where $x@1~\dots~x@n$ is a list of free variables in the subgoal and $f$ the
 name of a function that takes an $n$-tuple. Usually the subgoal will
-contain the term $f~x@1~\dots~x@n$ but this need not be the case. The
+contain the term $f(x@1,\dots,x@n)$ but this need not be the case. The
 induction rules do not mention $f$ at all. For example @{thm[source]sep.induct}
 \begin{isabelle}
 {\isasymlbrakk}~{\isasymAnd}a.~P~a~[];\isanewline