Zulip Chat Archive
Stream: new members
Topic: Mathematics in Lean 3.3. help with problem
lame_lexem (May 05 2024 at 17:08):
Hi. I am completing chapter 3.3 and i am stuck at this question.
solution
Ralf Stephan (May 05 2024 at 17:16):
The state that you have after the intro h' is the same as when you had said by_contra h', so you need to show a contradiction now. No idea if this is the right way, but hey, I'm a newb.
lame_lexem (May 05 2024 at 17:34):
Oh ok. :sweat_smile: I solved it the same way the previous ones were solved by obtaining the contra proof, and applying something from the mathlib.
solution
But I am still a bit unsure about [h _ h'] syntax used in the linarith solution.
Is there a pice of docs i can read about it?
Ted Hwa (May 05 2024 at 18:06):
But I am still a bit unsure about
[h _ h']syntax used in the linarith solution.
When you write linarith [h _ h'] you are asking linarith to use the fact h _ h' in addition to all the other facts in the context. In this case, the _ is inferred as x so it would be equivalent to write [h x h'] (h x h' is the fact you used in the previous solution). When you write the _ , you are asking Lean to infer the missing parameter from the other parameters. Since h' is of type x > 0, and h is looking for a hypothesis of type ε > 0, the _ is inferred as x.
The _ is useful when you have a complicated expression. Imagine h' was (some complicated expression) > 0. Then you could write _ and Lean would infer the complicated expression, rather than forcing you to type it in.
Last updated: May 02 2025 at 03:31 UTC