How can one find the cause of a failure of the tactic? Or, possibly worse, the cause of a success but with an unexpected result. For example, when does REPEAT terminate? Does it require the given tactic to run at least once? Or will it succeed if it cannot run to begin with? We have found that many mistakes are due to misunderstanding of such corner cases.
![tinkertool level tinkertool level](https://www.bresink.com/osx/300863620-2/Docs-en/pgs/gfx/Network2.png)
To fully grasp this strategy one needs to understand the detailed semantics of the various tacticals, such as REPEAT and ORELSE. We then show practical use of PSGraph and Tinker by developing several proof patterns using the language and tool. In this paper we provide a detailed and formal account of PSGraph and show how theorem prover independence is achieved by Tinker. Springer, Berlin, pp 573–579, 2016): a theorem prover-independent system, which is connected to several different provers, with a graphical user interface including novel features to develop and debug proof tactics graphically.
![tinkertool level tinkertool level](https://cleversticky214.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/5/8/125885032/914041723.png)
in Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems. Open Publishing Association, London, pp 23–34, 2014 Lin et al. Tool support for PSGraph is achieved by Tinker (Grov et al. By using labelled hierarchical graphs this formalisation improves upon analysis and maintenance found in traditional tactic languages.
![tinkertool level tinkertool level](https://dearbela.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/4/126479693/385830584.png)
Springer, Berlin, pp 324–339, 2013) is a graphical language to support the development and maintenance of proof tactics for interactive theorem provers.