This would be a really good idea if there weren't historical reasons.

I think ideally this is how it would go:
1. the definition checker generates $k proofs for all relevant definitions
2. the axioms of the $k proofs are propagated forward to theorems
3. $j usage would also check for axioms that would be used in $k proofs

This would be more elegant and rigorous than hypotheses

On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 4:35 AM Gino Giotto
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >  can you prove False with your method?
>
> I think the answer is no, you cannot prove False from sound definitions. The 
> reason I think so is because definitions that follow the convention rules 
> always have a provable justification theorem inside the full axiomatic system 
> of set.mm. To prove false, you have to show that your definition has a 
> justification theorem that is stronger than what set.mm allows. This is the 
> way proofs of false have been produced historically so far, like I did in 
> https://github.com/metamath/set.mm/pull/4909. So, if you only care about 
> set.mm as a whole, then this is an axiom usage issue, but if you care about 
> subsystems of set.mm (or non-set.mm systems) then it becomes a bigger problem.
>
> >  It would be nice if this could be resolved by leaving metamath standard as 
> > is, and, for instance, improving the definition checker in mmj2 or 
> > metamath-knife. Seems like adding the $k token would make all the verifiers 
> > we wrote over the years obsolete.
>
> Yeah , this is a problem. I guess the simplest solution is the first option 
> then, which is to add the justification theorems as definition hypotheses. 
> It's not super elegant, and in my eyes it fails the promise of absolute 
> rigour of the metamath book, but it should work in practice.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Metamath" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/1cabdb6f-4afe-49c9-bf17-b3eeeea40f7fn%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Metamath" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/CAAfCLnjyghb3%2B9xZOb1tRY0cEevBPNCCWm8-iaTLPpnPu%3DuAKw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to