### isabelle

#### how to get isabelle to recognize an obvious conclusion

I'm trying to prove that the frontier, interior and exterior of a set are disjoint in isabelle. On the line I have marked '***', the fact that c \<inter> d = {} clearly follows from the previous line given the assumption at the start of the block, so how would I get isabelle to understand this? theory Scratch imports "~~/src/HOL/Multivariate_Analysis/Topology_Euclidean_Space" "~~/src/HOL/Probability/Sigma_Algebra" begin lemma boundary_disjoint: "disjoint {frontier S, interior S, interior (-S)}" proof (rule disjointI) fix c d assume sets: "c \<in> {frontier S, interior S, interior (-S)}" "d \<in> {frontier S, interior S, interior (-S)}" and "c \<noteq> d" show "c \<inter> d = {}" proof cases assume "c = frontier S \<and> d = interior S" then show ?thesis using frontier_def by auto next assume "c = frontier S \<and> d = interior (-S)" have "closure S \<inter> interior (-S) = {}" by (simp add: closure_interior) hence "frontier S \<inter> interior (-S) = {}" using frontier_def by auto *** then show ?thesis by auto next qed qed end

In Isar, you have to explicitly reference the facts you want to use. If you say that your goal follows from the previous line and the local assumption you made, you should give the assumption a name by writing assume A: "c = frontier S ∧ d = interior (-S)", and then you can prove your goal by with A have ?thesis by auto. Why did I write have and not show? Well, there is another problem. You did a proof cases, but that uses the rule (P ⟹ Q) ⟹ (¬P ⟹ Q) ⟹ Q, i.e. it does a case distinction of the kind ‘Is P true or false?’. That is not what you want here. One way to do your case distiction is by something like this: from sets show "c ∩ d = {}" proof (elim singletonE insertE) insertE is an elimination rule for facts of the form x ∈ insert y A, and since {a,b,c} is just syntactic sugar for insert a (insert b (insert c A)), this is what you want. singletonE is similar, but specifically for x ∈ {y}; using singletonE instead of insertE means you do not get trivial cases with assumptions like x ∈ {}. This gives you 9 cases, of which 3 are trivially solved by simp_all. The rest you have to prove yourself in Isar if you want to, but they can be solved quite easily by auto as well: from sets and `c ≠ d` show "c ∩ d = {}" by (auto simp: frontier_def closure_def interior_closure)

### Related Links

Generating Isabelle HTML documentation *without proofs*

When would you use `presume` in an Isar proof?

how to create an object logic via thf

What Isabelle library to reuse for expressing that some function is a linear order (on some set)

Isabelle: how to print result of 1 + 2?

Inductive Set with Non-fixed Parameters

What Kind of Type Definitions are Legal in Local Contexts?

Isabelle: Sledgehammer finds a proof but it fails

How to hide defined constants

Inductive predicates for a fixed tuple parameter

proof (rule disjE) for nested disjunction

Canonical way to get a more specific lemma

Can I define multiple names for a theorem?

How do I remove duplicate subgoals in Isabelle?

Why won't Isabelle simplify the body of my “if _ then _ else” construct?

What rule does 'apply (rule)' or 'proof' use?