This page contains usage examples for attributes (or directives).

Consider rule/theorem mp:

$\quad [|\ ?P \longrightarrow ?Q; ?P\ |] \Longrightarrow ?Q$.

Using

  mp [of _ "C ∨ D"]

yields the more specific theorem

$\quad [|\ ?P \longrightarrow C \vee D; ?P\ |] \Longrightarrow C \vee D$.

Note that $C, D$ are no longer schematic variables but specific terms.

Consider rule/theorem mp:

$\quad [|\ ?P \longrightarrow ?Q; ?P\ |] \Longrightarrow ?Q$.

Using

  mp [where Q="C ∨ D"]

yields the more specific theorem

$\quad [|\ ?P \longrightarrow C \vee D; ?P\ |] \Longrightarrow C \vee D$.

Note that $C, D$ are no longer schematic variables but specific terms.

Consider the “composite” theorem

$\quad t : (?A \vee \neg ?A) \wedge (\text{False} \longrightarrow ?A)$

Then,

  t [THEN conjunct1]

yields the new theorem

$\quad ?A \vee \neg ?A$

Consider rule subst:

$\quad [|\ ?s = ?t; ?P ?s\ |]\quad \Longrightarrow\quad ?P ?t$

Note that you can use this rule only to substitute from left to right, not the reverse. Using OF together with theorem sym ($?s = ?t\ \Longrightarrow\ ?t = ?s$), i.e.

  subst [OF sym]

yields

$\quad [|\ ?t = ?s; ?P ?s\ |]\quad \Longrightarrow\quad ?P ?t$

which allows substitutions from right to left.

Consider theorem Nat.le_square:

$\quad ?m \leq\ ?m\ \cdot\ ?m$

Using

   Nat.le_square [simplified]

you get

$\quad 0 <\ ?m \longrightarrow Suc\ 0 \leq\ ?m$

Wether or not this is actually “simpler” is certainly open to discussion, especially because the original form does say something about $?m=0$ while the simplified version does not.

Consider rule disjE:

$\quad [|\ ?P\;\vee\; ?Q; ?P \Longrightarrow ?R; ?Q \Longrightarrow ?R\ |] \Longrightarrow ?R$.

Then,

  disjE [rotated 2]

yields

$\quad [|\ ?Q \Longrightarrow ?R; ?P\;\vee\; ?Q; ?P \Longrightarrow ?R\ |] \Longrightarrow ?R$.

Consider the definition of set membership Set.mem_def,

$\quad (?x \in ?A) = ?A ?x$.

Then,

   test [symmetric]   

yields

$\quad ?X ?x = (?x \in ?X)$.