## Mercurial > cpdt > repo

### annotate src/Match.v @ 140:8cce3247496b

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision
number or hash, or revset expression.

Prose for matcher

author | Adam Chlipala <adamc@hcoop.net> |
---|---|

date | Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:09:10 -0400 |

parents | a9e90bacbd16 |

children | ce4cc7fa9b2b |

rev | line source |
---|---|

adamc@132 | 1 (* Copyright (c) 2008, Adam Chlipala |

adamc@132 | 2 * |

adamc@132 | 3 * This work is licensed under a |

adamc@132 | 4 * Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 |

adamc@132 | 5 * Unported License. |

adamc@132 | 6 * The license text is available at: |

adamc@132 | 7 * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ |

adamc@132 | 8 *) |

adamc@132 | 9 |

adamc@132 | 10 (* begin hide *) |

adamc@132 | 11 Require Import List. |

adamc@132 | 12 |

adamc@132 | 13 Require Import Tactics. |

adamc@132 | 14 |

adamc@132 | 15 Set Implicit Arguments. |

adamc@132 | 16 (* end hide *) |

adamc@132 | 17 |

adamc@132 | 18 |

adamc@132 | 19 (** %\part{Proof Engineering} |

adamc@132 | 20 |

adamc@132 | 21 \chapter{Proof Search in Ltac}% *) |

adamc@132 | 22 |

adamc@132 | 23 (** We have seen many examples of proof automation so far. This chapter aims to give a principled presentation of the features of Ltac, focusing in particular on the Ltac [match] construct, which supports a novel approach to backtracking search. First, though, we will run through some useful automation tactics that are built into Coq. They are described in detail in the manual, so we only outline what is possible. *) |

adamc@132 | 24 |

adamc@132 | 25 (** * Some Built-In Automation Tactics *) |

adamc@132 | 26 |

adamc@132 | 27 (** A number of tactics are called repeatedly by [crush]. [intuition] simplifies propositional structure of goals. [congruence] applies the rules of equality and congruence closure, plus properties of constructors of inductive types. The [omega] tactic provides a complete decision procedure for a theory that is called quantifier-free linear arithmetic or Presburger arithmetic, depending on whom you ask. That is, [omega] proves any goal that follows from looking only at parts of that goal that can be interpreted as propositional formulas whose atomic formulas are basic comparison operations on natural numbers or integers. |

adamc@132 | 28 |

adamc@132 | 29 The [ring] tactic solves goals by appealing to the axioms of rings or semi-rings (as in algebra), depending on the type involved. Coq developments may declare new types to be parts of rings and semi-rings by proving the associated axioms. There is a simlar tactic [field] for simplifying values in fields by conversion to fractions over rings. Both [ring] and [field] can only solve goals that are equalities. The [fourier] tactic uses Fourier's method to prove inequalities over real numbers, which are axiomatized in the Coq standard library. |

adamc@132 | 30 |

adamc@133 | 31 The %\textit{%#<i>#setoid#</i>#%}% facility makes it possible to register new equivalence relations to be understood by tactics like [rewrite]. For instance, [Prop] is registered as a setoid with the equivalence relation "if and only if." The ability to register new setoids can be very useful in proofs of a kind common in math, where all reasoning is done after "modding out by a relation." *) |

adamc@132 | 32 |

adamc@132 | 33 |

adamc@133 | 34 (** * Hint Databases *) |

adamc@132 | 35 |

adamc@133 | 36 (** Another class of built-in tactics includes [auto], [eauto], and [autorewrite]. These are based on %\textit{%#<i>#hint databases#</i>#%}%, which we have seen extended in many examples so far. These tactics are important, because, in Ltac programming, we cannot create "global variables" whose values can be extended seamlessly by different modules in different source files. We have seen the advantages of hints so far, where [crush] can be defined once and for all, while still automatically applying the hints we add throughout developments. |

adamc@133 | 37 |

adamc@133 | 38 The basic hints for [auto] and [eauto] are [Hint Immediate lemma], asking to try solving a goal immediately by applying the premise-free lemma; [Resolve lemma], which does the same but may add new premises that are themselves to be subjects of proof search; [Constructor type], which acts like [Resolve] applied to every constructor of an inductive type; and [Unfold ident], which tries unfolding [ident] when it appears at the head of a proof goal. Each of these [Hint] commands may be used with a suffix, as in [Hint Resolve lemma : my_db]. This adds the hint only to the specified database, so that it would only be used by, for instance, [auto with my_db]. An additional argument to [auto] specifies the maximum depth of proof trees to search in depth-first order, as in [auto 8] or [auto 8 with my_db]. The default depth is 5. |

adamc@133 | 39 |

adamc@133 | 40 All of these [Hint] commands can be issued alternatively with a more primitive hint kind, [Extern]. A few examples should do best to explain how [Hint Extern] works. *) |

adamc@133 | 41 |

adamc@133 | 42 Theorem bool_neq : true <> false. |

adamc@133 | 43 auto. |

adamc@133 | 44 (** [crush] would have discharged this goal, but the default hint database for [auto] contains no hint that applies. *) |

adamc@133 | 45 Abort. |

adamc@133 | 46 |

adamc@133 | 47 (** It is hard to come up with a [bool]-specific hint that is not just a restatement of the theorem we mean to prove. Luckily, a simpler form suffices. *) |

adamc@133 | 48 |

adamc@133 | 49 Hint Extern 1 (_ <> _) => congruence. |

adamc@133 | 50 |

adamc@133 | 51 Theorem bool_neq : true <> false. |

adamc@133 | 52 auto. |

adamc@133 | 53 Qed. |

adamc@133 | 54 |

adamc@133 | 55 (** Our hint says: "whenever the conclusion matches the pattern [_ <> _], try applying [congruence]." The [1] is a cost for this rule. During proof search, whenever multiple rules apply, rules are tried in increasing cost order, so it pays to assign high costs to relatively expensive [Extern] hints. |

adamc@133 | 56 |

adamc@133 | 57 [Extern] hints may be implemented with the full Ltac language. This example shows a case where a hint uses a [match]. *) |

adamc@133 | 58 |

adamc@133 | 59 Section forall_and. |

adamc@133 | 60 Variable A : Set. |

adamc@133 | 61 Variables P Q : A -> Prop. |

adamc@133 | 62 |

adamc@133 | 63 Hypothesis both : forall x, P x /\ Q x. |

adamc@133 | 64 |

adamc@133 | 65 Theorem forall_and : forall z, P z. |

adamc@133 | 66 crush. |

adamc@133 | 67 (** [crush] makes no progress beyond what [intros] would have accomplished. [auto] will not apply the hypothesis [both] to prove the goal, because the conclusion of [both] does not unify with the conclusion of the goal. However, we can teach [auto] to handle this kind of goal. *) |

adamc@133 | 68 |

adamc@133 | 69 Hint Extern 1 (P ?X) => |

adamc@133 | 70 match goal with |

adamc@133 | 71 | [ H : forall x, P x /\ _ |- _ ] => apply (proj1 (H X)) |

adamc@133 | 72 end. |

adamc@133 | 73 |

adamc@133 | 74 auto. |

adamc@133 | 75 Qed. |

adamc@133 | 76 |

adamc@133 | 77 (** We see that an [Extern] pattern may bind unification variables that we use in the associated tactic. [proj1] is a function from the standard library for extracting a proof of [R] from a proof of [R /\ S]. *) |

adamc@133 | 78 End forall_and. |

adamc@133 | 79 |

adamc@133 | 80 (** After our success on this example, we might get more ambitious and seek to generalize the hint to all possible predicates [P]. |

adamc@133 | 81 |

adamc@133 | 82 [[ |

adamc@133 | 83 Hint Extern 1 (?P ?X) => |

adamc@133 | 84 match goal with |

adamc@133 | 85 | [ H : forall x, ?P x /\ _ |- _ ] => apply (proj1 (H X)) |

adamc@133 | 86 end. |

adamc@133 | 87 |

adamc@134 | 88 [[ |

adamc@133 | 89 User error: Bound head variable |

adamc@134 | 90 ]] |

adamc@133 | 91 |

adamc@134 | 92 Coq's [auto] hint databases work as tables mapping %\textit{%#<i>#head symbols#</i>#%}% to lists of tactics to try. Because of this, the constant head of an [Extern] pattern must be determinable statically. In our first [Extern] hint, the head symbol was [not], since [x <> y] desugars to [not (eq x y)]; and, in the second example, the head symbol was [P]. |

adamc@133 | 93 |

adamc@134 | 94 This restriction on [Extern] hints is the main limitation of the [auto] mechanism, preventing us from using it for general context simplifications that are not keyed off of the form of the conclusion. This is perhaps just as well, since we can often code more efficient tactics with specialized Ltac programs, and we will see how in later sections of the chapter. |

adamc@134 | 95 |

adamc@134 | 96 We have used [Hint Rewrite] in many examples so far. [crush] uses these hints by calling [autorewrite]. Our rewrite hints have taken the form [Hint Rewrite lemma : cpdt], adding them to the [cpdt] rewrite database. This is because, in contrast to [auto], [autorewrite] has no default database. Thus, we set the convention that [crush] uses the [cpdt] database. |

adamc@134 | 97 |

adamc@134 | 98 This example shows a direct use of [autorewrite]. *) |

adamc@134 | 99 |

adamc@134 | 100 Section autorewrite. |

adamc@134 | 101 Variable A : Set. |

adamc@134 | 102 Variable f : A -> A. |

adamc@134 | 103 |

adamc@134 | 104 Hypothesis f_f : forall x, f (f x) = f x. |

adamc@134 | 105 |

adamc@134 | 106 Hint Rewrite f_f : my_db. |

adamc@134 | 107 |

adamc@134 | 108 Lemma f_f_f : forall x, f (f (f x)) = f x. |

adamc@134 | 109 intros; autorewrite with my_db; reflexivity. |

adamc@134 | 110 Qed. |

adamc@134 | 111 |

adamc@134 | 112 (** There are a few ways in which [autorewrite] can lead to trouble when insufficient care is taken in choosing hints. First, the set of hints may define a nonterminating rewrite system, in which case invocations to [autorewrite] may not terminate. Second, we may add hints that "lead [autorewrite] down the wrong path." For instance: *) |

adamc@134 | 113 |

adamc@134 | 114 Section garden_path. |

adamc@134 | 115 Variable g : A -> A. |

adamc@134 | 116 Hypothesis f_g : forall x, f x = g x. |

adamc@134 | 117 Hint Rewrite f_g : my_db. |

adamc@134 | 118 |

adamc@134 | 119 Lemma f_f_f' : forall x, f (f (f x)) = f x. |

adamc@134 | 120 intros; autorewrite with my_db. |

adamc@134 | 121 (** [[ |

adamc@134 | 122 |

adamc@134 | 123 ============================ |

adamc@134 | 124 g (g (g x)) = g x |

adamc@134 | 125 ]] *) |

adamc@134 | 126 Abort. |

adamc@134 | 127 |

adamc@134 | 128 (** Our new hint was used to rewrite the goal into a form where the old hint could no longer be applied. This "non-monotonicity" of rewrite hints contrasts with the situation for [auto], where new hints may slow down proof search but can never "break" old proofs. *) |

adamc@134 | 129 |

adamc@134 | 130 Reset garden_path. |

adamc@134 | 131 |

adamc@134 | 132 (** [autorewrite] works with quantified equalities that include additional premises, but we must be careful to avoid similar incorrect rewritings. *) |

adamc@134 | 133 |

adamc@134 | 134 Section garden_path. |

adamc@134 | 135 Variable P : A -> Prop. |

adamc@134 | 136 Variable g : A -> A. |

adamc@134 | 137 Hypothesis f_g : forall x, P x -> f x = g x. |

adamc@134 | 138 Hint Rewrite f_g : my_db. |

adamc@134 | 139 |

adamc@134 | 140 Lemma f_f_f' : forall x, f (f (f x)) = f x. |

adamc@134 | 141 intros; autorewrite with my_db. |

adamc@134 | 142 (** [[ |

adamc@134 | 143 |

adamc@134 | 144 ============================ |

adamc@134 | 145 g (g (g x)) = g x |

adamc@134 | 146 |

adamc@134 | 147 subgoal 2 is: |

adamc@134 | 148 P x |

adamc@134 | 149 subgoal 3 is: |

adamc@134 | 150 P (f x) |

adamc@134 | 151 subgoal 4 is: |

adamc@134 | 152 P (f x) |

adamc@134 | 153 ]] *) |

adamc@134 | 154 Abort. |

adamc@134 | 155 |

adamc@134 | 156 (** The inappropriate rule fired the same three times as before, even though we know we will not be able to prove the premises. *) |

adamc@134 | 157 |

adamc@134 | 158 Reset garden_path. |

adamc@134 | 159 |

adamc@134 | 160 (** Our final, successful, attempt uses an extra argument to [Hint Rewrite] that specifies a tactic to apply to generated premises. *) |

adamc@134 | 161 |

adamc@134 | 162 Section garden_path. |

adamc@134 | 163 Variable P : A -> Prop. |

adamc@134 | 164 Variable g : A -> A. |

adamc@134 | 165 Hypothesis f_g : forall x, P x -> f x = g x. |

adamc@134 | 166 Hint Rewrite f_g using assumption : my_db. |

adamc@134 | 167 |

adamc@134 | 168 Lemma f_f_f' : forall x, f (f (f x)) = f x. |

adamc@134 | 169 intros; autorewrite with my_db; reflexivity. |

adamc@134 | 170 Qed. |

adamc@134 | 171 |

adamc@134 | 172 (** [autorewrite] will still use [f_g] when the generated premise is among our assumptions. *) |

adamc@134 | 173 |

adamc@134 | 174 Lemma f_f_f_g : forall x, P x -> f (f x) = g x. |

adamc@134 | 175 intros; autorewrite with my_db; reflexivity. |

adamc@134 | 176 Qed. |

adamc@134 | 177 End garden_path. |

adamc@134 | 178 |

adamc@134 | 179 (** It can also be useful to use the [autorewrite with db in *] form, which does rewriting in hypotheses, as well as in the conclusion. *) |

adamc@134 | 180 |

adamc@134 | 181 Lemma in_star : forall x y, f (f (f (f x))) = f (f y) |

adamc@134 | 182 -> f x = f (f (f y)). |

adamc@134 | 183 intros; autorewrite with my_db in *; assumption. |

adamc@134 | 184 Qed. |

adamc@134 | 185 |

adamc@134 | 186 End autorewrite. |

adamc@135 | 187 |

adamc@135 | 188 |

adamc@135 | 189 (** * Ltac Programming Basics *) |

adamc@135 | 190 |

adamc@135 | 191 (** We have already seen many examples of Ltac programs. In the rest of this chapter, we attempt to give a more principled introduction to the important features and design patterns. |

adamc@135 | 192 |

adamc@135 | 193 One common use for [match] tactics is identification of subjects for case analysis, as we see in this tactic definition. *) |

adamc@135 | 194 |

adamc@135 | 195 Ltac find_if := |

adamc@135 | 196 match goal with |

adamc@135 | 197 | [ |- if ?X then _ else _ ] => destruct X |

adamc@135 | 198 end. |

adamc@135 | 199 |

adamc@135 | 200 (** The tactic checks if the conclusion is an [if], [destruct]ing the test expression if so. Certain classes of theorem are trivial to prove automatically with such a tactic. *) |

adamc@135 | 201 |

adamc@135 | 202 Theorem hmm : forall (a b c : bool), |

adamc@135 | 203 if a |

adamc@135 | 204 then if b |

adamc@135 | 205 then True |

adamc@135 | 206 else True |

adamc@135 | 207 else if c |

adamc@135 | 208 then True |

adamc@135 | 209 else True. |

adamc@135 | 210 intros; repeat find_if; constructor. |

adamc@135 | 211 Qed. |

adamc@135 | 212 |

adamc@135 | 213 (** The [repeat] that we use here is called a %\textit{%#<i>#tactical#</i>#%}%, or tactic combinator. The behavior of [repeat t] is to loop through running [t], running [t] on all generated subgoals, running [t] on %\textit{%#<i>#their#</i>#%}% generated subgoals, and so on. When [t] fails at any point in this search tree, that particular subgoal is left to be handled by later tactics. Thus, it is important never to use [repeat] with a tactic that always succeeds. |

adamc@135 | 214 |

adamc@135 | 215 Another very useful Ltac building block is %\textit{%#<i>#context patterns#</i>#%}%. *) |

adamc@135 | 216 |

adamc@135 | 217 Ltac find_if_inside := |

adamc@135 | 218 match goal with |

adamc@135 | 219 | [ |- context[if ?X then _ else _] ] => destruct X |

adamc@135 | 220 end. |

adamc@135 | 221 |

adamc@135 | 222 (** The behavior of this tactic is to find any subterm of the conclusion that is an [if] and then [destruct] the test expression. This version subsumes [find_if]. *) |

adamc@135 | 223 |

adamc@135 | 224 Theorem hmm' : forall (a b c : bool), |

adamc@135 | 225 if a |

adamc@135 | 226 then if b |

adamc@135 | 227 then True |

adamc@135 | 228 else True |

adamc@135 | 229 else if c |

adamc@135 | 230 then True |

adamc@135 | 231 else True. |

adamc@135 | 232 intros; repeat find_if_inside; constructor. |

adamc@135 | 233 Qed. |

adamc@135 | 234 |

adamc@135 | 235 (** We can also use [find_if_inside] to prove goals that [find_if] does not simplify sufficiently. *) |

adamc@135 | 236 |

adamc@135 | 237 Theorem duh2 : forall (a b : bool), |

adamc@135 | 238 (if a then 42 else 42) = (if b then 42 else 42). |

adamc@135 | 239 intros; repeat find_if_inside; reflexivity. |

adamc@135 | 240 Qed. |

adamc@135 | 241 |

adamc@135 | 242 (** Many decision procedures can be coded in Ltac via "[repeat match] loops." For instance, we can implement a subset of the functionality of [tauto]. *) |

adamc@135 | 243 |

adamc@135 | 244 Ltac my_tauto := |

adamc@135 | 245 repeat match goal with |

adamc@135 | 246 | [ H : ?P |- ?P ] => exact H |

adamc@135 | 247 |

adamc@135 | 248 | [ |- True ] => constructor |

adamc@135 | 249 | [ |- _ /\ _ ] => constructor |

adamc@135 | 250 | [ |- _ -> _ ] => intro |

adamc@135 | 251 |

adamc@135 | 252 | [ H : False |- _ ] => destruct H |

adamc@135 | 253 | [ H : _ /\ _ |- _ ] => destruct H |

adamc@135 | 254 | [ H : _ \/ _ |- _ ] => destruct H |

adamc@135 | 255 |

adamc@135 | 256 | [ H1 : ?P -> ?Q, H2 : ?P |- _ ] => |

adamc@135 | 257 let H := fresh "H" in |

adamc@135 | 258 generalize (H1 H2); clear H1; intro H |

adamc@135 | 259 end. |

adamc@135 | 260 |

adamc@135 | 261 (** Since [match] patterns can share unification variables between hypothesis and conclusion patterns, it is easy to figure out when the conclusion matches a hypothesis. The [exact] tactic solves a goal completely when given a proof term of the proper type. |

adamc@135 | 262 |

adamc@135 | 263 It is also trivial to implement the "introduction rules" for a few of the connectives. Implementing elimination rules is only a little more work, since we must bind a name for a hypothesis to [destruct]. |

adamc@135 | 264 |

adamc@135 | 265 The last rule implements modus ponens. The most interesting part is the use of the Ltac-level [let] with a [fresh] expression. [fresh] takes in a name base and returns a fresh hypothesis variable based on that name. We use the new name variable [H] as the name we assign to the result of modus ponens. The use of [generalize] changes our conclusion to be an implication from [Q]. We clear the original hypothesis and move [Q] into the context with name [H]. *) |

adamc@135 | 266 |

adamc@135 | 267 Section propositional. |

adamc@135 | 268 Variables P Q R : Prop. |

adamc@135 | 269 |

adamc@138 | 270 Theorem propositional : (P \/ Q \/ False) /\ (P -> Q) -> True /\ Q. |

adamc@135 | 271 my_tauto. |

adamc@135 | 272 Qed. |

adamc@135 | 273 End propositional. |

adamc@135 | 274 |

adamc@135 | 275 (** It was relatively easy to implement modus ponens, because we do not lose information by clearing every implication that we use. If we want to implement a similarly-complete procedure for quantifier instantiation, we need a way to ensure that a particular proposition is not already included among our hypotheses. To do that effectively, we first need to learn a bit more about the semantics of [match]. |

adamc@135 | 276 |

adamc@135 | 277 It is tempting to assume that [match] works like it does in ML. In fact, there are a few critical differences in its behavior. One is that we may include arbitrary expressions in patterns, instead of being restricted to variables and constructors. Another is that the same variable may appear multiple times, inducing an implicit equality constraint. |

adamc@135 | 278 |

adamc@135 | 279 There is a related pair of two other differences that are much more important than the others. [match] has a %\textit{%#<i>#backtracking semantics for failure#</i>#%}%. In ML, pattern matching works by finding the first pattern to match and then executing its body. If the body raises an exception, then the overall match raises the same exception. In Coq, failures in case bodies instead trigger continued search through the list of cases. |

adamc@135 | 280 |

adamc@135 | 281 For instance, this (unnecessarily verbose) proof script works: *) |

adamc@135 | 282 |

adamc@135 | 283 Theorem m1 : True. |

adamc@135 | 284 match goal with |

adamc@135 | 285 | [ |- _ ] => intro |

adamc@135 | 286 | [ |- True ] => constructor |

adamc@135 | 287 end. |

adamc@135 | 288 Qed. |

adamc@135 | 289 |

adamc@135 | 290 (** The first case matches trivially, but its body tactic fails, since the conclusion does not begin with a quantifier or implication. In a similar ML match, that would mean that the whole pattern-match fails. In Coq, we backtrack and try the next pattern, which also matches. Its body tactic succeeds, so the overall tactic succeeds as well. |

adamc@135 | 291 |

adamc@135 | 292 The example shows how failure can move to a different pattern within a [match]. Failure can also trigger an attempt to find %\textit{%#<i>#a different way of matching a single pattern#</i>#%}%. Consider another example: *) |

adamc@135 | 293 |

adamc@135 | 294 Theorem m2 : forall P Q R : Prop, P -> Q -> R -> Q. |

adamc@135 | 295 intros; match goal with |

adamc@135 | 296 | [ H : _ |- _ ] => pose H |

adamc@135 | 297 end. |

adamc@135 | 298 (** [[ |

adamc@135 | 299 |

adamc@135 | 300 r := H1 : R |

adamc@135 | 301 ============================ |

adamc@135 | 302 Q |

adamc@135 | 303 ]] |

adamc@135 | 304 |

adamc@135 | 305 By applying [pose], a convenient debugging tool for "leaking information out of [match]es," we see that this [match] first tries binding [H] to [H1], which cannot be used to prove [Q]. Nonetheless, the following variation on the tactic succeeds at proving the goal: *) |

adamc@135 | 306 |

adamc@135 | 307 match goal with |

adamc@135 | 308 | [ H : _ |- _ ] => exact H |

adamc@135 | 309 end. |

adamc@135 | 310 Qed. |

adamc@135 | 311 |

adamc@135 | 312 (** The tactic first unifies [H] with [H1], as before, but [exact H] fails in that case, so the tactic engine searches for more possible values of [H]. Eventually, it arrives at the correct value, so that [exact H] and the overall tactic succeed. *) |

adamc@135 | 313 |

adamc@135 | 314 (** Now we are equipped to implement a tactic for checking that a proposition is not among our hypotheses: *) |

adamc@135 | 315 |

adamc@135 | 316 Ltac notHyp P := |

adamc@135 | 317 match goal with |

adamc@135 | 318 | [ _ : P |- _ ] => fail 1 |

adamc@135 | 319 | _ => |

adamc@135 | 320 match P with |

adamc@135 | 321 | ?P1 /\ ?P2 => first [ notHyp P1 | notHyp P2 | fail 2 ] |

adamc@135 | 322 | _ => idtac |

adamc@135 | 323 end |

adamc@135 | 324 end. |

adamc@135 | 325 |

adamc@135 | 326 (** We use the equality checking that is built into pattern-matching to see if there is a hypothesis that matches the proposition exactly. If so, we use the [fail] tactic. Without arguments, [fail] signals normal tactic failure, as you might expect. When [fail] is passed an argument [n], [n] is used to count outwards through the enclosing cases of backtracking search. In this case, [fail 1] says "fail not just in this pattern-matching branch, but for the whole [match]." The second case will never be tried when the [fail 1] is reached. |

adamc@135 | 327 |

adamc@135 | 328 This second case, used when [P] matches no hypothesis, checks if [P] is a conjunction. Other simplifications may have split conjunctions into their component formulas, so we need to check that at least one of those components is also not represented. To achieve this, we apply the [first] tactical, which takes a list of tactics and continues down the list until one of them does not fail. The [fail 2] at the end says to [fail] both the [first] and the [match] wrapped around it. |

adamc@135 | 329 |

adamc@135 | 330 The body of the [?P1 /\ ?P2] case guarantees that, if it is reached, we either succeed completely or fail completely. Thus, if we reach the wildcard case, [P] is not a conjunction. We use [idtac], a tactic that would be silly to apply on its own, since its effect is to succeed at doing nothing. Nonetheless, [idtac] is a useful placeholder for cases like what we see here. |

adamc@135 | 331 |

adamc@135 | 332 With the non-presence check implemented, it is easy to build a tactic that takes as input a proof term and adds its conclusion as a new hypothesis, only if that conclusion is not already present, failing otherwise. *) |

adamc@135 | 333 |

adamc@135 | 334 Ltac extend pf := |

adamc@135 | 335 let t := type of pf in |

adamc@135 | 336 notHyp t; generalize pf; intro. |

adamc@135 | 337 |

adamc@135 | 338 (** We see the useful [type of] operator of Ltac. This operator could not be implemented in Gallina, but it is easy to support in Ltac. We end up with [t] bound to the type of [pf]. We check that [t] is not already present. If so, we use a [generalize]/[intro] combo to add a new hypothesis proved by [pf]. |

adamc@135 | 339 |

adamc@135 | 340 With these tactics defined, we can write a tactic [completer] for adding to the context all consequences of a set of simple first-order formulas. *) |

adamc@135 | 341 |

adamc@135 | 342 Ltac completer := |

adamc@135 | 343 repeat match goal with |

adamc@135 | 344 | [ |- _ /\ _ ] => constructor |

adamc@135 | 345 | [ H : _ /\ _ |- _ ] => destruct H |

adamc@135 | 346 | [ H : ?P -> ?Q, H' : ?P |- _ ] => |

adamc@135 | 347 generalize (H H'); clear H; intro H |

adamc@135 | 348 | [ |- forall x, _ ] => intro |

adamc@135 | 349 |

adamc@135 | 350 | [ H : forall x, ?P x -> _, H' : ?P ?X |- _ ] => |

adamc@135 | 351 extend (H X H') |

adamc@135 | 352 end. |

adamc@135 | 353 |

adamc@135 | 354 (** We use the same kind of conjunction and implication handling as previously. Note that, since [->] is the special non-dependent case of [forall], the fourth rule handles [intro] for implications, too. |

adamc@135 | 355 |

adamc@135 | 356 In the fifth rule, when we find a [forall] fact [H] with a premise matching one of our hypotheses, we add the appropriate instantiation of [H]'s conclusion, if we have not already added it. |

adamc@135 | 357 |

adamc@135 | 358 We can check that [completer] is working properly: *) |

adamc@135 | 359 |

adamc@135 | 360 Section firstorder. |

adamc@135 | 361 Variable A : Set. |

adamc@135 | 362 Variables P Q R S : A -> Prop. |

adamc@135 | 363 |

adamc@135 | 364 Hypothesis H1 : forall x, P x -> Q x /\ R x. |

adamc@135 | 365 Hypothesis H2 : forall x, R x -> S x. |

adamc@135 | 366 |

adamc@135 | 367 Theorem fo : forall x, P x -> S x. |

adamc@135 | 368 completer. |

adamc@135 | 369 (** [[ |

adamc@135 | 370 |

adamc@135 | 371 x : A |

adamc@135 | 372 H : P x |

adamc@135 | 373 H0 : Q x |

adamc@135 | 374 H3 : R x |

adamc@135 | 375 H4 : S x |

adamc@135 | 376 ============================ |

adamc@135 | 377 S x |

adamc@135 | 378 ]] *) |

adamc@135 | 379 |

adamc@135 | 380 assumption. |

adamc@135 | 381 Qed. |

adamc@135 | 382 End firstorder. |

adamc@135 | 383 |

adamc@135 | 384 (** We narrowly avoided a subtle pitfall in our definition of [completer]. Let us try another definition that even seems preferable to the original, to the untrained eye. *) |

adamc@135 | 385 |

adamc@135 | 386 Ltac completer' := |

adamc@135 | 387 repeat match goal with |

adamc@135 | 388 | [ |- _ /\ _ ] => constructor |

adamc@135 | 389 | [ H : _ /\ _ |- _ ] => destruct H |

adamc@135 | 390 | [ H : ?P -> _, H' : ?P |- _ ] => |

adamc@135 | 391 generalize (H H'); clear H; intro H |

adamc@135 | 392 | [ |- forall x, _ ] => intro |

adamc@135 | 393 |

adamc@135 | 394 | [ H : forall x, ?P x -> _, H' : ?P ?X |- _ ] => |

adamc@135 | 395 extend (H X H') |

adamc@135 | 396 end. |

adamc@135 | 397 |

adamc@135 | 398 (** The only difference is in the modus ponens rule, where we have replaced an unused unification variable [?Q] with a wildcard. Let us try our example again with this version: *) |

adamc@135 | 399 |

adamc@135 | 400 Section firstorder'. |

adamc@135 | 401 Variable A : Set. |

adamc@135 | 402 Variables P Q R S : A -> Prop. |

adamc@135 | 403 |

adamc@135 | 404 Hypothesis H1 : forall x, P x -> Q x /\ R x. |

adamc@135 | 405 Hypothesis H2 : forall x, R x -> S x. |

adamc@135 | 406 |

adamc@135 | 407 Theorem fo' : forall x, P x -> S x. |

adamc@135 | 408 (** [[ |

adamc@135 | 409 |

adamc@135 | 410 completer'. |

adamc@135 | 411 |

adamc@135 | 412 Coq loops forever at this point. What went wrong? *) |

adamc@135 | 413 Abort. |

adamc@135 | 414 End firstorder'. |

adamc@136 | 415 |

adamc@136 | 416 (** A few examples should illustrate the issue. Here we see a [match]-based proof that works fine: *) |

adamc@136 | 417 |

adamc@136 | 418 Theorem t1 : forall x : nat, x = x. |

adamc@136 | 419 match goal with |

adamc@136 | 420 | [ |- forall x, _ ] => trivial |

adamc@136 | 421 end. |

adamc@136 | 422 Qed. |

adamc@136 | 423 |

adamc@136 | 424 (** This one fails. *) |

adamc@136 | 425 |

adamc@136 | 426 Theorem t1' : forall x : nat, x = x. |

adamc@136 | 427 (** [[ |

adamc@136 | 428 |

adamc@136 | 429 match goal with |

adamc@136 | 430 | [ |- forall x, ?P ] => trivial |

adamc@136 | 431 end. |

adamc@136 | 432 |

adamc@136 | 433 [[ |

adamc@136 | 434 User error: No matching clauses for match goal |

adamc@136 | 435 ]] *) |

adamc@136 | 436 Abort. |

adamc@136 | 437 |

adamc@136 | 438 (** The problem is that unification variables may not contain locally-bound variables. In this case, [?P] would need to be bound to [x = x], which contains the local quantified variable [x]. By using a wildcard in the earlier version, we avoided this restriction. |

adamc@136 | 439 |

adamc@136 | 440 The Coq 8.2 release includes a special pattern form for a unification variable with an explicit set of free variables. That unification variable is then bound to a function from the free variables to the "real" value. In Coq 8.1 and earlier, there is no such workaround. |

adamc@136 | 441 |

adamc@136 | 442 No matter which version you use, it is important to be aware of this restriction. As we have alluded to, the restriction is the culprit behind the infinite-looping behavior of [completer']. We unintentionally match quantified facts with the modus ponens rule, circumventing the "already present" check and leading to different behavior. *) |

adamc@137 | 443 |

adamc@137 | 444 |

adamc@137 | 445 (** * Functional Programming in Ltac *) |

adamc@137 | 446 |

adamc@137 | 447 (** Ltac supports quite convenient functional programming, with a Lisp-with-syntax kind of flavor. However, there are a few syntactic conventions involved in getting programs to be accepted. The Ltac syntax is optimized for tactic-writing, so one has to deal with some inconveniences in writing more standard functional programs. |

adamc@137 | 448 |

adamc@137 | 449 To illustrate, let us try to write a simple list length function. We start out writing it just like in Gallina, simply replacing [Fixpoint] (and its annotations) with [Ltac]. |

adamc@137 | 450 |

adamc@137 | 451 [[ |

adamc@137 | 452 Ltac length ls := |

adamc@137 | 453 match ls with |

adamc@137 | 454 | nil => O |

adamc@137 | 455 | _ :: ls' => S (length ls') |

adamc@137 | 456 end. |

adamc@137 | 457 |

adamc@137 | 458 [[ |

adamc@137 | 459 Error: The reference ls' was not found in the current environment |

adamc@137 | 460 ]] |

adamc@137 | 461 |

adamc@137 | 462 At this point, we hopefully remember that pattern variable names must be prefixed by question marks in Ltac. |

adamc@137 | 463 |

adamc@137 | 464 [[ |

adamc@137 | 465 Ltac length ls := |

adamc@137 | 466 match ls with |

adamc@137 | 467 | nil => O |

adamc@137 | 468 | _ :: ?ls' => S (length ls') |

adamc@137 | 469 end. |

adamc@137 | 470 |

adamc@137 | 471 [[ |

adamc@137 | 472 Error: The reference S was not found in the current environment |

adamc@137 | 473 ]] |

adamc@137 | 474 |

adamc@137 | 475 The problem is that Ltac treats the expression [S (length ls')] as an invocation of a tactic [S] with argument [length ls']. We need to use a special annotation to "escape into" the Gallina parsing nonterminal. *) |

adamc@137 | 476 |

adamc@137 | 477 Ltac length ls := |

adamc@137 | 478 match ls with |

adamc@137 | 479 | nil => O |

adamc@137 | 480 | _ :: ?ls' => constr:(S (length ls')) |

adamc@137 | 481 end. |

adamc@137 | 482 |

adamc@137 | 483 (** This definition is accepted. It can be a little awkward to test Ltac definitions like this. Here is one method. *) |

adamc@137 | 484 |

adamc@137 | 485 Goal False. |

adamc@137 | 486 let n := length (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) in |

adamc@137 | 487 pose n. |

adamc@137 | 488 (** [[ |

adamc@137 | 489 |

adamc@137 | 490 n := S (length (2 :: 3 :: nil)) : nat |

adamc@137 | 491 ============================ |

adamc@137 | 492 False |

adamc@137 | 493 ]] |

adamc@137 | 494 |

adamc@137 | 495 [n] only has the length calculation unrolled one step. What has happened here is that, by escaping into the [constr] nonterminal, we referred to the [length] function of Gallina, rather than the [length] Ltac function that we are defining. *)Abort. |

adamc@137 | 496 |

adamc@137 | 497 Reset length. |

adamc@137 | 498 |

adamc@137 | 499 (** The thing to remember is that Gallina terms built by tactics must be bound explicitly via [let] or a similar technique, rather than inserting Ltac calls directly in other Gallina terms. *) |

adamc@137 | 500 |

adamc@137 | 501 Ltac length ls := |

adamc@137 | 502 match ls with |

adamc@137 | 503 | nil => O |

adamc@137 | 504 | _ :: ?ls' => |

adamc@137 | 505 let ls'' := length ls' in |

adamc@137 | 506 constr:(S ls'') |

adamc@137 | 507 end. |

adamc@137 | 508 |

adamc@137 | 509 Goal False. |

adamc@137 | 510 let n := length (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) in |

adamc@137 | 511 pose n. |

adamc@137 | 512 (** [[ |

adamc@137 | 513 |

adamc@137 | 514 n := 3 : nat |

adamc@137 | 515 ============================ |

adamc@137 | 516 False |

adamc@137 | 517 ]] *) |

adamc@137 | 518 Abort. |

adamc@137 | 519 |

adamc@137 | 520 (** We can also use anonymous function expressions and local function definitions in Ltac, as this example of a standard list [map] function shows. *) |

adamc@137 | 521 |

adamc@137 | 522 Ltac map T f := |

adamc@137 | 523 let rec map' ls := |

adamc@137 | 524 match ls with |

adamc@137 | 525 | nil => constr:(@nil T) |

adamc@137 | 526 | ?x :: ?ls' => |

adamc@137 | 527 let x' := f x in |

adamc@137 | 528 let ls'' := map' ls' in |

adamc@137 | 529 constr:(x' :: ls'') |

adamc@137 | 530 end in |

adamc@137 | 531 map'. |

adamc@137 | 532 |

adamc@137 | 533 (** Ltac functions can have no implicit arguments. It may seem surprising that we need to pass [T], the carried type of the output list, explicitly. We cannot just use [type of f], because [f] is an Ltac term, not a Gallina term, and Ltac programs are dynamically typed. [f] could use very syntactic methods to decide to return differently typed terms for different inputs. We also could not replace [constr:(@nil T)] with [constr:nil], because we have no strongly-typed context to use to infer the parameter to [nil]. Luckily, we do have sufficient context within [constr:(x' :: ls'')]. |

adamc@137 | 534 |

adamc@137 | 535 Sometimes we need to employ the opposite direction of "nonterminal escape," when we want to pass a complicated tactic expression as an argument to another tactic, as we might want to do in invoking [map]. *) |

adamc@137 | 536 |

adamc@137 | 537 Goal False. |

adamc@137 | 538 let ls := map (nat * nat)%type ltac:(fun x => constr:(x, x)) (1 :: 2 :: 3 :: nil) in |

adamc@137 | 539 pose ls. |

adamc@137 | 540 (** [[ |

adamc@137 | 541 |

adamc@137 | 542 l := (1, 1) :: (2, 2) :: (3, 3) :: nil : list (nat * nat) |

adamc@137 | 543 ============================ |

adamc@137 | 544 False |

adamc@137 | 545 ]] *) |

adamc@137 | 546 Abort. |

adamc@137 | 547 |

adamc@138 | 548 |

adamc@139 | 549 (** * Recursive Proof Search *) |

adamc@139 | 550 |

adamc@139 | 551 (** Deciding how to instantiate quantifiers is one of the hardest parts of automated first-order theorem proving. For a given problem, we can consider all possible bounded-length sequences of quantifier instantiations, applying only propositional reasoning at the end. This is probably a bad idea for almost all goals, but it makes for a nice example of recursive proof search procedures in Ltac. |

adamc@139 | 552 |

adamc@139 | 553 We can consider the maximum "dependency chain" length for a first-order proof. We define the chain length for a hypothesis to be 0, and the chain length for an instantiation of a quantified fact to be one greater than the length for that fact. The tactic [inster n] is meant to try all possible proofs with chain length at most [n]. *) |

adamc@139 | 554 |

adamc@139 | 555 Ltac inster n := |

adamc@139 | 556 intuition; |

adamc@139 | 557 match n with |

adamc@139 | 558 | S ?n' => |

adamc@139 | 559 match goal with |

adamc@139 | 560 | [ H : forall x : ?T, _, x : ?T |- _ ] => generalize (H x); inster n' |

adamc@139 | 561 end |

adamc@139 | 562 end. |

adamc@139 | 563 |

adamc@139 | 564 (** [inster] begins by applying propositional simplification. Next, it checks if any chain length remains. If so, it tries all possible ways of instantiating quantified hypotheses with properly-typed local variables. It is critical to realize that, if the recursive call [inster n'] fails, then the [match goal] just seeks out another way of unifying its pattern against proof state. Thus, this small amount of code provides an elegant demonstration of how backtracking [match] enables exhaustive search. |

adamc@139 | 565 |

adamc@139 | 566 We can verify the efficacy of [inster] with two short examples. The built-in [firstorder] tactic (with no extra arguments) is able to prove the first but not the second. *) |

adamc@139 | 567 |

adamc@139 | 568 Section test_inster. |

adamc@139 | 569 Variable A : Set. |

adamc@139 | 570 Variables P Q : A -> Prop. |

adamc@139 | 571 Variable f : A -> A. |

adamc@139 | 572 Variable g : A -> A -> A. |

adamc@139 | 573 |

adamc@139 | 574 Hypothesis H1 : forall x y, P (g x y) -> Q (f x). |

adamc@139 | 575 |

adamc@139 | 576 Theorem test_inster : forall x y, P (g x y) -> Q (f x). |

adamc@139 | 577 intros; inster 2. |

adamc@139 | 578 Qed. |

adamc@139 | 579 |

adamc@139 | 580 Hypothesis H3 : forall u v, P u /\ P v /\ u <> v -> P (g u v). |

adamc@139 | 581 Hypothesis H4 : forall u, Q (f u) -> P u /\ P (f u). |

adamc@139 | 582 |

adamc@139 | 583 Theorem test_inster2 : forall x y, x <> y -> P x -> Q (f y) -> Q (f x). |

adamc@139 | 584 intros; inster 3. |

adamc@139 | 585 Qed. |

adamc@139 | 586 End test_inster. |

adamc@139 | 587 |

adamc@140 | 588 (** The style employed in the definition of [inster] can seem very counterintuitive to functional programmers. Usually, functional programs accumulate state changes in explicit arguments to recursive functions. In Ltac, the state of the current subgoal is always implicit. Nonetheless, in contrast to general imperative programming, it is easy to undo any changes to this state, and indeed such "undoing" happens automatically at failures within [match]es. In this way, Ltac programming is similar to programming in Haskell with a stateful failure monad that supports a composition operator along the lines of the [first] tactical. |

adamc@140 | 589 |

adamc@140 | 590 Functional programming purists may react indignantly to the suggestion of programming this way. Nonetheless, as with other kinds of "monadic programming," many problems are much simpler to solve with Ltac than they would be with explicit, pure proof manipulation in ML or Haskell. To demonstrate, we will write a basic simplification procedure for logical implications. |

adamc@140 | 591 |

adamc@140 | 592 This procedure is inspired by one for separation logic, where conjuncts in formulas are thought of as "resources," such that we lose no completeness by "crossing out" equal conjuncts on the two sides of an implication. This process is complicated by the fact that, for reasons of modularity, our formulas can have arbitrary nested tree structure (branching at conjunctions) and may include existential quantifiers. It is helpful for the matching process to "go under" quantifiers and in fact decide how to instantiate existential quantifiers in the conclusion. |

adamc@140 | 593 |

adamc@140 | 594 To distinguish the implications that our tactic handles from the implications that will show up as "plumbing" in various lemmas, we define a wrapper definition, a notation, and a tactic. *) |

adamc@138 | 595 |

adamc@138 | 596 Definition imp (P1 P2 : Prop) := P1 -> P2. |

adamc@140 | 597 Infix "-->" := imp (no associativity, at level 95). |

adamc@140 | 598 Ltac imp := unfold imp; firstorder. |

adamc@138 | 599 |

adamc@140 | 600 (** These lemmas about [imp] will be useful in the tactic that we will write. *) |

adamc@138 | 601 |

adamc@138 | 602 Theorem and_True_prem : forall P Q, |

adamc@138 | 603 (P /\ True --> Q) |

adamc@138 | 604 -> (P --> Q). |

adamc@138 | 605 imp. |

adamc@138 | 606 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 607 |

adamc@138 | 608 Theorem and_True_conc : forall P Q, |

adamc@138 | 609 (P --> Q /\ True) |

adamc@138 | 610 -> (P --> Q). |

adamc@138 | 611 imp. |

adamc@138 | 612 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 613 |

adamc@138 | 614 Theorem assoc_prem1 : forall P Q R S, |

adamc@138 | 615 (P /\ (Q /\ R) --> S) |

adamc@138 | 616 -> ((P /\ Q) /\ R --> S). |

adamc@138 | 617 imp. |

adamc@138 | 618 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 619 |

adamc@138 | 620 Theorem assoc_prem2 : forall P Q R S, |

adamc@138 | 621 (Q /\ (P /\ R) --> S) |

adamc@138 | 622 -> ((P /\ Q) /\ R --> S). |

adamc@138 | 623 imp. |

adamc@138 | 624 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 625 |

adamc@138 | 626 Theorem comm_prem : forall P Q R, |

adamc@138 | 627 (P /\ Q --> R) |

adamc@138 | 628 -> (Q /\ P --> R). |

adamc@138 | 629 imp. |

adamc@138 | 630 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 631 |

adamc@138 | 632 Theorem assoc_conc1 : forall P Q R S, |

adamc@138 | 633 (S --> P /\ (Q /\ R)) |

adamc@138 | 634 -> (S --> (P /\ Q) /\ R). |

adamc@138 | 635 imp. |

adamc@138 | 636 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 637 |

adamc@138 | 638 Theorem assoc_conc2 : forall P Q R S, |

adamc@138 | 639 (S --> Q /\ (P /\ R)) |

adamc@138 | 640 -> (S --> (P /\ Q) /\ R). |

adamc@138 | 641 imp. |

adamc@138 | 642 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 643 |

adamc@138 | 644 Theorem comm_conc : forall P Q R, |

adamc@138 | 645 (R --> P /\ Q) |

adamc@138 | 646 -> (R --> Q /\ P). |

adamc@138 | 647 imp. |

adamc@138 | 648 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 649 |

adamc@140 | 650 (** The first order of business in crafting our [matcher] tactic will be auxiliary support for searching through formula trees. The [search_prem] tactic implements running its tactic argument [tac] on every subformula of an [imp] premise. As it traverses a tree, [search_prem] applies some of the above lemmas to rewrite the goal to bring different subformulas to the head of the goal. That is, for every subformula [P] of the implication premise, we want [P] to "have a turn," where the premise is rearranged into the form [P /\ Q] for some [Q]. The tactic [tac] should expect to see a goal in this form and focus its attention on the first conjunct of the premise. *) |

adamc@140 | 651 |

adamc@138 | 652 Ltac search_prem tac := |

adamc@138 | 653 let rec search P := |

adamc@138 | 654 tac |

adamc@138 | 655 || (apply and_True_prem; tac) |

adamc@138 | 656 || match P with |

adamc@138 | 657 | ?P1 /\ ?P2 => |

adamc@138 | 658 (apply assoc_prem1; search P1) |

adamc@138 | 659 || (apply assoc_prem2; search P2) |

adamc@138 | 660 end |

adamc@138 | 661 in match goal with |

adamc@138 | 662 | [ |- ?P /\ _ --> _ ] => search P |

adamc@138 | 663 | [ |- _ /\ ?P --> _ ] => apply comm_prem; search P |

adamc@138 | 664 | [ |- _ --> _ ] => progress (tac || (apply and_True_prem; tac)) |

adamc@138 | 665 end. |

adamc@138 | 666 |

adamc@140 | 667 (** To understand how [search_prem] works, we turn first to the final [match]. If the premise begins with a conjunction, we call the [search] procedure on each of the conjuncts, or only the first conjunct, if that already yields a case where [tac] does not fail. [search P] expects and maintains the invariant that the premise is of the form [P /\ Q] for some [Q]. We pass [P] explicitly as a kind of decreasing induction measure, to avoid looping forever when [tac] always fails. The second [match] case calls a commutativity lemma to realize this invariant, before passing control to [search]. The final [match] case tries applying [tac] directly and then, if that fails, changes the form of the goal by adding an extraneous [True] conjunct and calls [tac] again. |

adamc@140 | 668 |

adamc@140 | 669 [search] itself tries the same tricks as in the last case of the final [match]. Additionally, if neither works, it checks if [P] is a conjunction. If so, it calls itself recursively on each conjunct, first applying associativity lemmas to maintain the goal-form invariant. |

adamc@140 | 670 |

adamc@140 | 671 We will also want a dual function [search_conc], which does tree search through an [imp] conclusion. *) |

adamc@140 | 672 |

adamc@138 | 673 Ltac search_conc tac := |

adamc@138 | 674 let rec search P := |

adamc@138 | 675 tac |

adamc@138 | 676 || (apply and_True_conc; tac) |

adamc@138 | 677 || match P with |

adamc@138 | 678 | ?P1 /\ ?P2 => |

adamc@138 | 679 (apply assoc_conc1; search P1) |

adamc@138 | 680 || (apply assoc_conc2; search P2) |

adamc@138 | 681 end |

adamc@138 | 682 in match goal with |

adamc@138 | 683 | [ |- _ --> ?P /\ _ ] => search P |

adamc@138 | 684 | [ |- _ --> _ /\ ?P ] => apply comm_conc; search P |

adamc@138 | 685 | [ |- _ --> _ ] => progress (tac || (apply and_True_conc; tac)) |

adamc@138 | 686 end. |

adamc@138 | 687 |

adamc@140 | 688 (** Now we can prove a number of lemmas that are suitable for application by our search tactics. A lemma that is meant to handle a premise should have the form [P /\ Q --> R] for some interesting [P], and a lemma that is meant to handle a conclusion should have the form [P --> Q /\ R] for some interesting [Q]. *) |

adamc@140 | 689 |

adamc@138 | 690 Theorem False_prem : forall P Q, |

adamc@138 | 691 False /\ P --> Q. |

adamc@138 | 692 imp. |

adamc@138 | 693 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 694 |

adamc@138 | 695 Theorem True_conc : forall P Q : Prop, |

adamc@138 | 696 (P --> Q) |

adamc@138 | 697 -> (P --> True /\ Q). |

adamc@138 | 698 imp. |

adamc@138 | 699 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 700 |

adamc@138 | 701 Theorem Match : forall P Q R : Prop, |

adamc@138 | 702 (Q --> R) |

adamc@138 | 703 -> (P /\ Q --> P /\ R). |

adamc@138 | 704 imp. |

adamc@138 | 705 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 706 |

adamc@138 | 707 Theorem ex_prem : forall (T : Type) (P : T -> Prop) (Q R : Prop), |

adamc@138 | 708 (forall x, P x /\ Q --> R) |

adamc@138 | 709 -> (ex P /\ Q --> R). |

adamc@138 | 710 imp. |

adamc@138 | 711 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 712 |

adamc@138 | 713 Theorem ex_conc : forall (T : Type) (P : T -> Prop) (Q R : Prop) x, |

adamc@138 | 714 (Q --> P x /\ R) |

adamc@138 | 715 -> (Q --> ex P /\ R). |

adamc@138 | 716 imp. |

adamc@138 | 717 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 718 |

adamc@140 | 719 (** We will also want a "base case" lemma for finishing proofs where cancelation has removed every constituent of the conclusion. *) |

adamc@140 | 720 |

adamc@138 | 721 Theorem imp_True : forall P, |

adamc@138 | 722 P --> True. |

adamc@138 | 723 imp. |

adamc@138 | 724 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 725 |

adamc@140 | 726 (** Our final [matcher] tactic is now straightforward. First, we [intros] all variables into scope. Then we attempt simple premise simplifications, finishing the proof upon finding [False] and eliminating any existential quantifiers that we find. After that, we search through the conclusion. We remove [True] conjuncts, remove existential quantifiers by introducing unification variables for their bound variables, and search for matching premises to cancel. Finally, when no more progress is made, we see if the goal has become trivial and can be solved by [imp_True]. *) |

adamc@140 | 727 |

adamc@138 | 728 Ltac matcher := |

adamc@138 | 729 intros; |

adamc@138 | 730 repeat search_prem ltac:(apply False_prem || (apply ex_prem; intro)); |

adamc@140 | 731 repeat search_conc ltac:(apply True_conc || eapply ex_conc |

adamc@140 | 732 || search_prem ltac:(apply Match)); |

adamc@140 | 733 try apply imp_True. |

adamc@140 | 734 |

adamc@140 | 735 (** Our tactic succeeds at proving a simple example. *) |

adamc@138 | 736 |

adamc@138 | 737 Theorem t2 : forall P Q : Prop, |

adamc@138 | 738 Q /\ (P /\ False) /\ P --> P /\ Q. |

adamc@138 | 739 matcher. |

adamc@138 | 740 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 741 |

adamc@140 | 742 (** In the generated proof, we find a trace of the workings of the search tactics. *) |

adamc@140 | 743 |

adamc@140 | 744 Print t2. |

adamc@140 | 745 (** [[ |

adamc@140 | 746 |

adamc@140 | 747 t2 = |

adamc@140 | 748 fun P Q : Prop => |

adamc@140 | 749 comm_prem (assoc_prem1 (assoc_prem2 (False_prem (P:=P /\ P /\ Q) (P /\ Q)))) |

adamc@140 | 750 : forall P Q : Prop, Q /\ (P /\ False) /\ P --> P /\ Q |

adamc@140 | 751 ]] *) |

adamc@140 | 752 |

adamc@140 | 753 (** We can also see that [matcher] is well-suited for cases where some human intervention is needed after the automation finishes. *) |

adamc@140 | 754 |

adamc@138 | 755 Theorem t3 : forall P Q R : Prop, |

adamc@138 | 756 P /\ Q --> Q /\ R /\ P. |

adamc@138 | 757 matcher. |

adamc@140 | 758 (** [[ |

adamc@140 | 759 |

adamc@140 | 760 ============================ |

adamc@140 | 761 True --> R |

adamc@140 | 762 ]] |

adamc@140 | 763 |

adamc@140 | 764 [matcher] canceled those conjuncts that it was able to cancel, leaving a simplified subgoal for us, much as [intuition] does. *) |

adamc@138 | 765 Abort. |

adamc@138 | 766 |

adamc@140 | 767 (** [matcher] even succeeds at guessing quantifier instantiations. It is the unification that occurs in uses of the [Match] lemma that does the real work here. *) |

adamc@140 | 768 |

adamc@138 | 769 Theorem t4 : forall (P : nat -> Prop) Q, (exists x, P x /\ Q) --> Q /\ (exists x, P x). |

adamc@138 | 770 matcher. |

adamc@138 | 771 Qed. |

adamc@138 | 772 |

adamc@140 | 773 Print t4. |

adamc@140 | 774 |

adamc@140 | 775 (** [[ |

adamc@140 | 776 |

adamc@140 | 777 t4 = |

adamc@140 | 778 fun (P : nat -> Prop) (Q : Prop) => |

adamc@140 | 779 and_True_prem |

adamc@140 | 780 (ex_prem (P:=fun x : nat => P x /\ Q) |

adamc@140 | 781 (fun x : nat => |

adamc@140 | 782 assoc_prem2 |

adamc@140 | 783 (Match (P:=Q) |

adamc@140 | 784 (and_True_conc |

adamc@140 | 785 (ex_conc (fun x0 : nat => P x0) x |

adamc@140 | 786 (Match (P:=P x) (imp_True (P:=True)))))))) |

adamc@140 | 787 : forall (P : nat -> Prop) (Q : Prop), |

adamc@140 | 788 (exists x : nat, P x /\ Q) --> Q /\ (exists x : nat, P x) |

adamc@140 | 789 ]] *) |

adamc@140 | 790 |

adamc@140 | 791 |