> I really don’t see the gain from getting rid of sign_simps, even if it is > unsuccessful. Except for the occurrence > > linordered_field_class.sign_simps(41) > > in Multivariate_Analysis/Derivative.thy.
My primary concern is actually the comment which states that some rules
have not been added to field_simps since the lead to splitting. So the
question is whether it would make sense to identify more sensible but
splitting rewrite rules and establish a fact collection which contains
field_simps but also those splitting rules. Especially fields with case
distinctions (!)= 0 could bear likely candidates.
The broader context is that I have made an investigation for theorems
which are equivalent except in their sort constraints. These are likely
to exhibit irregularities in the class hierarchy.
Cheers,
Florian
--
PGP available:
http://home.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/haftmann/pgp/florian_haftmann_at_informatik_tu_muenchen_de
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list isabelle-...@in.tum.de https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev
