Return-Path: Delivery-Date: Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk with SMTP (PP-6.4) outside ac.uk; Tue, 9 Mar 1993 18:35:37 +0000 Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA03000; Tue, 9 Mar 93 10:04:43 -0800 Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Precedence: bulk Received: from leopard.cs.uidaho.edu by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA02995; Tue, 9 Mar 93 10:04:31 -0800 Received: from iraun1.ira.uka.de by leopard.cs.uidaho.edu (16.7/1.34) id AA22541; Tue, 9 Mar 93 02:55:52 -0800 Message-Id: <9303091055.AA22541@leopard.cs.uidaho.edu> Received: from ira.uka.de by iraun1.ira.uka.de with SMTP (PP) id <20338-0@iraun1.ira.uka.de>; Tue, 9 Mar 1993 11:45:46 +0100 Date: Tue, 9 Mar 93 11:46:26 MET From: schneide To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted Subject: set_eq I tried to prove the following in HOL90: CONJUNCTS_CONV((--`p/\p/\q`--),(--`p/\q`--)); In my opinion it should work, but I received a HOL_ERR. Searching for the error, I found out that the function set_eq does not work as I expect it to, e.g. having l1 = [(--`p`--),(--`p`--),(--`q`--)] and l2 = [(--`q`--),(--`p`--)] set_eq l1 l2 evaluates to false. Is this okay?