Strange behavior on Vacuous Quantification.
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- UrWeb
- Stars
- 155
- Forks
- 12
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
First off, thanks for the tool!
I was playing around with logitext tonight and came across some strange behavior when unfolding a right implication introduction inference rule instance where the antecedent of the implication formula had an occurrence of vacuous quantification. Here is an example: http://logitext.mit.edu/proving/.28forall+y.2C+P+.2D.3E+Q.29+.2D.3E+P+.2D.3E+Q
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reproducing the behavior in the linked Logitext proof, focusing on unfolding a right implication introduction rule whose antecedent contains vacuous quantification. Compare the resulting inference with the expected treatment of the quantifier; done means the proof unfolds correctly for this example.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100