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