Difference between revisions of "Maplet Overriding in Goal"

From Event-B
Jump to navigationJump to search
imported>Billaude
imported>Billaude
Line 25: Line 25:
 
     ├── A
 
     ├── A
 
     └── B
 
     └── B
Then, if the hypothesis <math>f\in A\to B</math> is contained in the hypothesis the goal is splitted as follows :
+
Then, if the hypothesis <math>f\in A\to B</math> is present, the goal is split as follows :
 
:*<math>f\in A\to B</math>
 
:*<math>f\in A\to B</math>
 
:*<math>x \in A</math>
 
:*<math>x \in A</math>
 
:*<math>y \in B</math>
 
:*<math>y \in B</math>
Else, it is splitted as follows :
+
Else, it is split as follows :
:*<math>{x} \domsub f \in A \smallsetminus \left\{x\right\} \to B</math>
+
:*<math>\{x\} \domsub f \in A \smallsetminus \{x\} \to B</math>
 
:*<math>x \in A</math>
 
:*<math>x \in A</math>
 
:*<math>y \in B</math>
 
:*<math>y \in B</math>
  
 
[[Category:Design proposal]]
 
[[Category:Design proposal]]

Revision as of 13:11, 30 May 2011

This page describes the design of a tactic requested here : Feature Request #3306228

Objective

Split every goal in the form :  f \ovl{\{x \mapsto y\}} \in A \to B into three sub-goals :

  • \{x\} \domsub f \in A \smallsetminus \{x\} \to B
  • x \in A
  • y \in B

Design Decision

Instead of proofing the first sub-goal, it may be more easy to proof f\in A\to B which is a sufficient condition : (f\in A\to B)\limp (\{x\} \domsub f \in A \smallsetminus \{x\} \to B).

Implementation

First, the goal is checked. Its tree structure must match the following one :

\in
├── \ovl
│   ├── f
│   └── {}
│       └──  \mapsto
│            ├── x
│            └── y
└── \to
    ├── A
    └── B

Then, if the hypothesis f\in A\to B is present, the goal is split as follows :

  • f\in A\to B
  • x \in A
  • y \in B

Else, it is split as follows :

  • \{x\} \domsub f \in A \smallsetminus \{x\} \to B
  • x \in A
  • y \in B