diff -r b38c67991122 -r 2d3d020eef11 doc-src/Ref/goals.tex --- a/doc-src/Ref/goals.tex Wed Jan 18 11:36:04 1995 +0100 +++ b/doc-src/Ref/goals.tex Thu Jan 19 16:05:21 1995 +0100 @@ -117,34 +117,47 @@ the goal in intuitionistic logic and proving it using classical logic. \end{itemize} -\subsection{Extracting the proved theorem} +\subsection{Extracting and storing the proved theorem} +\label{ExtractingAndStoringTheProvedTheorem} \index{theorems!from subgoal module} \begin{ttbox} -result : unit -> thm -uresult : unit -> thm +result : unit -> thm +uresult : unit -> thm +bind_thm : string * thm -> unit +qed : string -> unit \end{ttbox} \begin{ttdescription} \item[\ttindexbold{result}()]\index{assumptions!of main goal} -returns the final theorem, after converting the free variables to -schematics. It discharges the assumptions supplied to the matching -{\tt goal} command. + returns the final theorem, after converting the free variables to + schematics. It discharges the assumptions supplied to the matching + {\tt goal} command. -It raises an exception unless the proof state passes certain checks. There -must be no assumptions other than those supplied to {\tt goal}. There -must be no subgoals. The theorem proved must be a (first-order) instance -of the original goal, as stated in the {\tt goal} command. This allows -{\bf answer extraction} --- instantiation of variables --- but no other -changes to the main goal. The theorem proved must have the same signature -as the initial proof state. + It raises an exception unless the proof state passes certain checks. There + must be no assumptions other than those supplied to {\tt goal}. There + must be no subgoals. The theorem proved must be a (first-order) instance + of the original goal, as stated in the {\tt goal} command. This allows + {\bf answer extraction} --- instantiation of variables --- but no other + changes to the main goal. The theorem proved must have the same signature + as the initial proof state. -These checks are needed because an Isabelle tactic can return any proof -state at all. + These checks are needed because an Isabelle tactic can return any proof + state at all. \item[\ttindexbold{uresult}()] is like {\tt result()} but omits the checks. It is needed when the initial goal contains function unknowns, when definitions are unfolded in the main goal (by calling \ttindex{rewrite_tac}),\index{definitions!unfolding} or when \ttindex{assume_ax} has been used. + +\item[\ttindexbold{bind_thm}($name$, $thm$)]\index{theorems!storing of} + stores {\tt standard($thm$)} (see \S\ref{MiscellaneousForwardRules}) + in Isabelle's theorem database and in the ML variable $name$. The + theorem can be retrieved from Isabelle's database by {\tt get_thm} + (see \S\ref{BasicOperationsOnTheories}). + +\item[\ttindexbold{qed} $name$] + combines {\tt result} and {\tt bind_thm} in that it first uses {\tt + result()} to get the theorem and then stores it like {\tt bind_thm}. \end{ttdescription} @@ -332,8 +345,10 @@ \section{Executing batch proofs} \index{batch execution} \begin{ttbox} -prove_goal : theory-> string->(thm list->tactic list)->thm -prove_goalw : theory->thm list->string->(thm list->tactic list)->thm +prove_goal : theory-> string->(thm list->tactic list)->thm +qed_goal : string->theory-> string->(thm list->tactic list)->unit +prove_goalw: theory->thm list->string->(thm list->tactic list)->thm +qed_goalw : string->theory->thm list->string->(thm list->tactic list)->unit prove_goalw_cterm: thm list->Sign.cterm->(thm list->tactic list)->thm \end{ttbox} These batch functions create an initial proof state, then apply a tactic to @@ -366,11 +381,19 @@ executes a proof of the {\it formula\/} in the given {\it theory}, using the given tactic function. +\item[\ttindexbold{qed_goal} $name$ $theory$ $formula$ $tacsf$;] +acts like {\tt prove_goal} but also stores the resulting theorem in +Isabelle's theorem database and in the ML variable $name$ (see +\S\ref{ExtractingAndStoringTheProvedTheorem}). + \item[\ttindexbold{prove_goalw} {\it theory} {\it defs} {\it formula} {\it tacsf};]\index{meta-rewriting} is like {\tt prove_goal} but also applies the list of {\it defs\/} as meta-rewrite rules to the first subgoal and the premises. +\item[\ttindexbold{qed_goalw} $name$ $theory$ $defs$ $formula$ $tacsf$;] +is analogous to {\tt qed_goal}. + \item[\ttindexbold{prove_goalw_cterm} {\it theory} {\it defs} {\it ct} {\it tacsf};] is a version of {\tt prove_goalw} for programming applications. The main