From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,d4e6b104ff087788
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.79.MISMATCH!transit4.hitnews.eu!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: SPARK : surprising failure with implication
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <op.vdmxbejnule2fv@garhos> <op.vdnocgnzule2fv@garhos>
 <1w1eqf61t3v92$.lh19ptdumc7y$.dlg@40tude.net> <op.vdnxn9wlxmjfy8@garhos>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:55:48 +0200
Message-ID: <1pn33lrt7swo1.1w5le0zbs0dl$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Jun 2010 10:55:35 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 86999921.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=f>V3n1d1MJlFXUDVUnEXQmMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOkZljGUOAYJ@g[6LHn;2LCVn7enW;^6ZC`d\`mfM[68DCcA?QP@LmhV@m
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12192
Date: 2010-06-02T10:55:35+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:56:23 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:42:58 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
> 
>> (forall A,B in Boolean)
>>
>> not B => not A =
>>    = not not B or not A =
>>    = B or not A =
>>    = not A or B =
>>    = A => B
>>
> Yes, you confirmed that is right and so I'm not silly. But why Simplifier  
> do not seems to know it ? It is the basis of inference logic.

Modus ponens is, but in the form:

A => B, A
--------------
B

You have rather unusual:

A => B, not B
--------------------
not A

Disproving the antecedent from wrong consequent is not very common.

> That is why  
> I have such a weighty question in my mind : I wonder if I did something  
> wrong somewhere or if something is broken.
> 
> Do you have an idea ?

None, except that what looks obvious for a man is not for a computer and
conversely. (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de