Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Idea: Bottom-up prover statement selection: forbidden, allowed, required (low priority) #52

Open
david-a-wheeler opened this issue May 28, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
Alg related to algorithms

Comments

@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure I understand what selecting statements in the bottom-up prover does.

That said, I have a thought. Perhaps this should be a 3-way option: Forbidden, Allowed, Required.

In particular, mmj2 allows specification of required statements at the first level, and this is often useful to force the use of specific statements - making searching much faster and making it more likely you'll find the proof you wanted. You might also add a button like "require use of previous statement" since in many cases you're adding a statement to extend on a previous one.

I haven't thought through all the ramifications, and there may be another/better way. But I thought it'd be better to record the thought before it disappeared from my head, and perhaps this idea will point the way to a good/better idea.

@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Contributor Author

This may not be all that critical since you can specify other things, but it makes sense to put this in the "hopper of ideas" to see if anyone thinks it's important.

@david-a-wheeler david-a-wheeler changed the title Idea: Bottom-up prover statement selection: forbidden, allowed, required Idea: Bottom-up prover statement selection: forbidden, allowed, required (low priority) May 28, 2023
@expln expln added the Alg related to algorithms label Jun 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Alg related to algorithms
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants