Idiomatic Proof by Contradiction in Isabelle? - proof

Question

So far I wrote proofs by contradiction in the following style in Isabelle (using a pattern by Jeremy Siek):
lemma "<expression>"
proof -
{
assume "¬ <expression>"
then have False sorry
}
then show ?thesis by blast
qed
Is there a way that works without the nested raw proof block { ... }?

Answer 1

There is the rule ccontr for classical proofs by contradiction:
have "<expression>"
proof (rule ccontr)
assume "¬ <expression>"
then show False sorry
qed
It may sometimes help to use by contradiction to prove the last step.
There is also the rule classical (which looks less intuitive):
have "<expression>"
proof (rule classical)
assume "¬ <expression>"
then show "<expression>" sorry
qed
For further examples using classical, see $ISABELLE_HOME/src/HOL/Isar_Examples/Drinker.thy

Answer 2

For better understanding of rule classical it can be printed in structured Isar style like this:
print_statement classical
Output:
theorem classical:
obtains "¬ thesis"
Thus the pure evil to intuitionists appears a bit more intuitive: in order to prove some arbitrary thesis, we may assume that its negation holds.
The corresponding canonical proof pattern is this:
notepad
begin
have A
proof (rule classical)
assume "¬ ?thesis"
then show ?thesis sorry
qed
end
Here ?thesis is the concrete thesis of the above claim of A, which may be an arbitrarily complex statement. This quasi abstraction via the abbreviation ?thesis is typical for idiomatic Isar, to emphasize the structure of reasoning.