Proof for mathd_algebra_513 - #187
Open
aleph-prover-test[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
Automated commit at 20260305_235229
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Proven lemmas: 1/1
The goal is to prove that if a, b ∈ ℝ satisfy the linear system 3·a + 2·b = 5 and a + b = 2, then necessarily a = 1 and b = 1. The proof is decomposed by splitting the conjunction a = 1 ∧ b = 1 into two separate subgoals: first show a = 1, then show b = 1. For each subgoal, the idea is that the desired equality is a linear consequence of the two given equations, so Lean’s linear arithmetic tactic linarith can derive it directly from h₀ and h₁. In the current blueprint, both subgoals are already solved: after constructor creates the two goals, linarith [h₀, h₁] closes each one. Nothing remains to be proven; the proof is complete as written. An alternative strategy (also noted) would be to solve by substitution (derive b = 2 − a from a + b = 2, plug into 3a + 2b = 5 to get a = 1, then back-substitute for b), but the direct linarith approach is simpler and fully automated here.