author | wenzelm |
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:26:44 +0100 | |
changeset 8483 | b437907f9b26 |
parent 8203 | 2fcc6017cb72 |
child 8507 | d22fcea34cb7 |
permissions | -rw-r--r-- |
7135 | 1 |
|
7167 | 2 |
\chapter{Generic Tools and Packages}\label{ch:gen-tools} |
3 |
||
7315 | 4 |
\section{Basic proof methods}\label{sec:pure-meth} |
7167 | 5 |
|
8195 | 6 |
\indexisarmeth{fail}\indexisarmeth{succeed}\indexisarmeth{$-$} |
7 |
\indexisarmeth{assumption}\indexisarmeth{this} |
|
7458 | 8 |
\indexisarmeth{fold}\indexisarmeth{unfold} |
7167 | 9 |
\indexisarmeth{rule}\indexisarmeth{erule} |
10 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
|
11 |
- & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
12 |
assumption & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
8195 | 13 |
this & : & \isarmeth \\ |
7321 | 14 |
rule & : & \isarmeth \\ |
15 |
erule^* & : & \isarmeth \\[0.5ex] |
|
7167 | 16 |
fold & : & \isarmeth \\ |
7321 | 17 |
unfold & : & \isarmeth \\[0.5ex] |
7335 | 18 |
succeed & : & \isarmeth \\ |
7321 | 19 |
fail & : & \isarmeth \\ |
7167 | 20 |
\end{matharray} |
21 |
||
22 |
\begin{rail} |
|
23 |
('fold' | 'unfold' | 'rule' | 'erule') thmrefs |
|
24 |
; |
|
25 |
\end{rail} |
|
26 |
||
27 |
\begin{descr} |
|
7321 | 28 |
\item [``$-$''] does nothing but insert the forward chaining facts as premises |
7335 | 29 |
into the goal. Note that command $\PROOFNAME$ without any method actually |
30 |
performs a single reduction step using the $rule$ method (see below); thus a |
|
31 |
plain \emph{do-nothing} proof step would be $\PROOF{-}$ rather than |
|
32 |
$\PROOFNAME$ alone. |
|
7466 | 33 |
\item [$assumption$] solves some goal by assumption. Any facts given are |
8195 | 34 |
guaranteed to participate in the refinement. |
35 |
\item [$this$] applies the current facts directly as rules. Note that |
|
36 |
``$\DOT$'' (dot) abbreviates $\BY{this}$. |
|
7321 | 37 |
\item [$rule~thms$] applies some rule given as argument in backward manner; |
38 |
facts are used to reduce the rule before applying it to the goal. Thus |
|
39 |
$rule$ without facts is plain \emph{introduction}, while with facts it |
|
7897 | 40 |
becomes a (generalized) \emph{elimination}. |
7321 | 41 |
|
42 |
Note that the classical reasoner introduces another version of $rule$ that |
|
7987 | 43 |
is able to pick appropriate rules automatically, whenever $thms$ are omitted |
44 |
(see \S\ref{sec:classical-basic}); that method is the default for |
|
45 |
$\PROOFNAME$ steps. Note that ``$\DDOT$'' (double-dot) abbreviates |
|
7897 | 46 |
$\BY{default}$. |
7321 | 47 |
\item [$erule~thms$] is similar to $rule$, but applies rules by |
48 |
elim-resolution. This is an improper method, mainly for experimentation and |
|
7335 | 49 |
porting of old scripts. Actual elimination proofs are usually done with |
7897 | 50 |
$rule$ (single step, involving facts) or $elim$ (repeated steps, see |
7321 | 51 |
\S\ref{sec:classical-basic}). |
7335 | 52 |
\item [$unfold~thms$ and $fold~thms$] expand and fold back again the given |
7987 | 53 |
meta-level definitions throughout all goals; any facts provided are inserted |
54 |
into the goal and subject to rewriting as well. |
|
55 |
\item [$succeed$] yields a single (unchanged) result; it is the identity of |
|
7897 | 56 |
the ``\texttt{,}'' method combinator (cf.\ \S\ref{sec:syn-meth}). |
7987 | 57 |
\item [$fail$] yields an empty result sequence; it is the identity of the |
7897 | 58 |
``\texttt{|}'' method combinator (cf.\ \S\ref{sec:syn-meth}). |
7321 | 59 |
\end{descr} |
7167 | 60 |
|
7315 | 61 |
|
62 |
\section{Miscellaneous attributes} |
|
63 |
||
7167 | 64 |
\indexisaratt{tag}\indexisaratt{untag}\indexisaratt{COMP}\indexisaratt{RS} |
65 |
\indexisaratt{OF}\indexisaratt{where}\indexisaratt{of}\indexisaratt{standard} |
|
66 |
\indexisaratt{elimify}\indexisaratt{transfer}\indexisaratt{export} |
|
7990 | 67 |
\indexisaratt{unfold}\indexisaratt{fold} |
7167 | 68 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
69 |
tag & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
7321 | 70 |
untag & : & \isaratt \\[0.5ex] |
71 |
OF & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
7167 | 72 |
RS & : & \isaratt \\ |
7321 | 73 |
COMP & : & \isaratt \\[0.5ex] |
7335 | 74 |
of & : & \isaratt \\ |
75 |
where & : & \isaratt \\[0.5ex] |
|
7990 | 76 |
unfold & : & \isaratt \\ |
77 |
fold & : & \isaratt \\[0.5ex] |
|
7167 | 78 |
standard & : & \isaratt \\ |
79 |
elimify & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
7335 | 80 |
export^* & : & \isaratt \\ |
7990 | 81 |
transfer & : & \isaratt \\[0.5ex] |
7167 | 82 |
\end{matharray} |
83 |
||
84 |
\begin{rail} |
|
85 |
('tag' | 'untag') (nameref+) |
|
86 |
; |
|
87 |
'OF' thmrefs |
|
88 |
; |
|
7321 | 89 |
('RS' | 'COMP') nat? thmref |
7167 | 90 |
; |
7175 | 91 |
'of' (inst * ) ('concl' ':' (inst * ))? |
7167 | 92 |
; |
7321 | 93 |
'where' (name '=' term * 'and') |
94 |
; |
|
7990 | 95 |
('unfold' | 'fold') thmrefs |
96 |
; |
|
7167 | 97 |
|
98 |
inst: underscore | term |
|
99 |
; |
|
100 |
\end{rail} |
|
101 |
||
102 |
\begin{descr} |
|
7897 | 103 |
\item [$tag~tags$ and $untag~tags$] add and remove $tags$ of the theorem, |
7321 | 104 |
respectively. Tags may be any list of strings that serve as comment for |
7897 | 105 |
some tools (e.g.\ $\LEMMANAME$ causes the tag ``$lemma$'' to be added to the |
7321 | 106 |
result). |
107 |
\item [$OF~thms$, $RS~n~thm$, and $COMP~n~thm$] compose rules. $OF$ applies |
|
108 |
$thms$ in parallel (cf.\ \texttt{MRS} in \cite[\S5]{isabelle-ref}, but note |
|
7987 | 109 |
the reversed order). Note that premises may be skipped by including |
110 |
``$\_$'' (underscore) as argument. |
|
7396 | 111 |
|
112 |
$RS$ resolves with the $n$-th premise of $thm$; $COMP$ is a version of $RS$ |
|
7987 | 113 |
that skips the automatic lifting process that is normally intended (cf.\ |
114 |
\texttt{RS} and \texttt{COMP} in \cite[\S5]{isabelle-ref}). |
|
7321 | 115 |
|
7466 | 116 |
\item [$of~\vec t$ and $where~\vec x = \vec t$] perform positional and named |
7335 | 117 |
instantiation, respectively. The terms given in $of$ are substituted for |
118 |
any schematic variables occurring in a theorem from left to right; |
|
7990 | 119 |
``\texttt{_}'' (underscore) indicates to skip a position. Arguments |
120 |
following a ``$concl\colon$'' specification refer to positions of the |
|
121 |
conclusion of a rule. |
|
122 |
||
123 |
\item [$unfold~thms$ and $fold~thms$] expand and fold back again the given |
|
124 |
meta-level definitions throughout a rule. |
|
7321 | 125 |
|
126 |
\item [$standard$] puts a theorem into the standard form of object-rules, just |
|
127 |
as the ML function \texttt{standard} (see \cite[\S5]{isabelle-ref}). |
|
128 |
||
7897 | 129 |
\item [$elimify$] turns an destruction rule into an elimination, just as the |
130 |
ML function \texttt{make\_elim} (see \cite{isabelle-ref}). |
|
7321 | 131 |
|
132 |
\item [$export$] lifts a local result out of the current proof context, |
|
7335 | 133 |
generalizing all fixed variables and discharging all assumptions. Note that |
134 |
(partial) export is usually done automatically behind the scenes. This |
|
135 |
attribute is mainly for experimentation. |
|
7321 | 136 |
|
137 |
\item [$transfer$] promotes a theorem to the current theory context, which has |
|
138 |
to enclose the former one. Normally, this is done automatically when rules |
|
139 |
are joined by inference. |
|
140 |
||
7167 | 141 |
\end{descr} |
142 |
||
7315 | 143 |
|
144 |
\section{Calculational proof}\label{sec:calculation} |
|
145 |
||
146 |
\indexisarcmd{also}\indexisarcmd{finally}\indexisaratt{trans} |
|
147 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
|
148 |
\isarcmd{also} & : & \isartrans{proof(state)}{proof(state)} \\ |
|
149 |
\isarcmd{finally} & : & \isartrans{proof(state)}{proof(chain)} \\ |
|
150 |
trans & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
151 |
\end{matharray} |
|
152 |
||
153 |
Calculational proof is forward reasoning with implicit application of |
|
154 |
transitivity rules (such those of $=$, $\le$, $<$). Isabelle/Isar maintains |
|
7391 | 155 |
an auxiliary register $calculation$\indexisarthm{calculation} for accumulating |
7897 | 156 |
results obtained by transitivity composed with the current result. Command |
157 |
$\ALSO$ updates $calculation$ involving $this$, while $\FINALLY$ exhibits the |
|
158 |
final $calculation$ by forward chaining towards the next goal statement. Both |
|
159 |
commands require valid current facts, i.e.\ may occur only after commands that |
|
160 |
produce theorems such as $\ASSUMENAME$, $\NOTENAME$, or some finished proof of |
|
161 |
$\HAVENAME$, $\SHOWNAME$ etc. |
|
7315 | 162 |
|
163 |
Also note that the automatic term abbreviation ``$\dots$'' has its canonical |
|
164 |
application with calculational proofs. It automatically refers to the |
|
165 |
argument\footnote{The argument of a curried infix expression is its right-hand |
|
166 |
side.} of the preceding statement. |
|
167 |
||
168 |
Isabelle/Isar calculations are implicitly subject to block structure in the |
|
169 |
sense that new threads of calculational reasoning are commenced for any new |
|
170 |
block (as opened by a local goal, for example). This means that, apart from |
|
171 |
being able to nest calculations, there is no separate \emph{begin-calculation} |
|
172 |
command required. |
|
173 |
||
174 |
\begin{rail} |
|
175 |
('also' | 'finally') transrules? comment? |
|
176 |
; |
|
177 |
'trans' (() | 'add' ':' | 'del' ':') thmrefs |
|
178 |
; |
|
179 |
||
180 |
transrules: '(' thmrefs ')' interest? |
|
181 |
; |
|
182 |
\end{rail} |
|
183 |
||
184 |
\begin{descr} |
|
185 |
\item [$\ALSO~(thms)$] maintains the auxiliary $calculation$ register as |
|
186 |
follows. The first occurrence of $\ALSO$ in some calculational thread |
|
7905 | 187 |
initializes $calculation$ by $this$. Any subsequent $\ALSO$ on the same |
7335 | 188 |
level of block-structure updates $calculation$ by some transitivity rule |
7458 | 189 |
applied to $calculation$ and $this$ (in that order). Transitivity rules are |
190 |
picked from the current context plus those given as $thms$ (the latter have |
|
191 |
precedence). |
|
7315 | 192 |
|
193 |
\item [$\FINALLY~(thms)$] maintaining $calculation$ in the same way as |
|
194 |
$\ALSO$, and concludes the current calculational thread. The final result |
|
195 |
is exhibited as fact for forward chaining towards the next goal. Basically, |
|
7987 | 196 |
$\FINALLY$ just abbreviates $\ALSO~\FROM{calculation}$. Note that |
197 |
``$\FINALLY~\SHOW{}{\Var{thesis}}~\DOT$'' and |
|
198 |
``$\FINALLY~\HAVE{}{\phi}~\DOT$'' are typical idioms for concluding |
|
199 |
calculational proofs. |
|
7315 | 200 |
|
7335 | 201 |
\item [$trans$] maintains the set of transitivity rules of the theory or proof |
202 |
context, by adding or deleting theorems (the default is to add). |
|
7315 | 203 |
\end{descr} |
204 |
||
7897 | 205 |
%FIXME |
206 |
%See theory \texttt{HOL/Isar_examples/Group} for a simple application of |
|
207 |
%calculations for basic equational reasoning. |
|
208 |
%\texttt{HOL/Isar_examples/KnasterTarski} involves a few more advanced |
|
209 |
%calculational steps in combination with natural deduction. |
|
7315 | 210 |
|
211 |
||
8483 | 212 |
\section{Named local contexts (cases)}\label{sec:cases} |
213 |
||
214 |
\indexisarcmd{case}\indexisarcmd{print-cases} |
|
215 |
\indexisaratt{case-names}\indexisaratt{params} |
|
216 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
|
217 |
\isarcmd{case} & : & \isartrans{proof(state)}{proof(state)} \\ |
|
218 |
\isarcmd{print_cases} & : & \isarkeep{proof} \\[0.5ex] |
|
219 |
case_names & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
220 |
params & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
221 |
\end{matharray} |
|
222 |
||
223 |
Basically, Isar proof contexts are built up explicitly using commands like |
|
224 |
$\FIXNAME$, $\ASSUMENAME$ etc.\ (see \S\ref{sec:proof-context}). In typical |
|
225 |
verification tasks this can become hard to manage, though. In particular, a |
|
226 |
large number of local contexts may emerge from case analysis or induction over |
|
227 |
inductive sets and types. |
|
228 |
||
229 |
\medskip |
|
230 |
||
231 |
The $\CASENAME$ command provides a shorthand to refer to certain parts of |
|
232 |
logical context symbolically. Proof methods may provide an environment of |
|
233 |
named ``cases'' of the form $c\colon \vec x, \vec \chi$. Then the effect of |
|
234 |
$\CASE{c}$ is exactly the same as $\FIX{\vec x}~\ASSUME{c}{\vec\chi}$. |
|
235 |
||
236 |
It is important to note that $\CASENAME$ does \emph{not} provide any means to |
|
237 |
peek at the current goal state, which is treated as strictly non-observable in |
|
238 |
Isar! Instead, the cases considered here usually emerge in a canonical way |
|
239 |
from certain pieces of specification that appear in the theory somewhere else |
|
240 |
(e.g.\ in an inductive definition, or recursive function). See also |
|
241 |
\S\ref{sec:induct-method} for more details of how this works in HOL. |
|
242 |
||
243 |
\medskip |
|
244 |
||
245 |
Named cases may be exhibited in the current proof context only if both the |
|
246 |
proof method and the corresponding rule support this. Case names and |
|
247 |
parameters of basic rules may be declared by hand as well, by using |
|
248 |
appropriate attributes. Thus variant versions of rules that have been derived |
|
249 |
manually may be used in advanced case analysis later. |
|
250 |
||
251 |
\railalias{casenames}{case\_names} |
|
252 |
\railterm{casenames} |
|
253 |
||
254 |
\begin{rail} |
|
255 |
'case' nameref attributes? |
|
256 |
; |
|
257 |
casenames (name + ) |
|
258 |
; |
|
259 |
'params' ((name * ) + 'and') |
|
260 |
; |
|
261 |
\end{rail} |
|
262 |
||
263 |
\begin{descr} |
|
264 |
\item [$\CASE{c}$] invokes a named local context $c\colon \vec x, \vec \chi$, |
|
265 |
as provided by an appropriate proof method (such as $cases$ and $induct$, |
|
266 |
see \S\ref{sec:induct-method}). The command $\CASE{c}$ abbreviates |
|
267 |
$\FIX{\vec x}~\ASSUME{c}{\vec\chi}$. |
|
268 |
\item [$\isarkeyword{print_cases}$] prints all local contexts of the current |
|
269 |
goal context, using Isar proof language notation. This is a diagnostic |
|
270 |
command; $undo$ does not apply. |
|
271 |
\item [$case_names~\vec c$] declares names for the local contexts of premises |
|
272 |
of some theorem ($\vec c$ refers to the \emph{suffix} of the list premises). |
|
273 |
\item [$params~\vec p@1 \dots \vec p@n$] renames the innermost parameters of |
|
274 |
premises $1, \dots, n$ of some theorem. An empty list of names be be given |
|
275 |
to skip positions, leaving the corresponding parameters unchanged. |
|
276 |
\end{descr} |
|
277 |
||
278 |
||
7135 | 279 |
\section{Axiomatic Type Classes}\label{sec:axclass} |
280 |
||
7356 | 281 |
\indexisarcmd{axclass}\indexisarcmd{instance}\indexisarmeth{intro-classes} |
7135 | 282 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
283 |
\isarcmd{axclass} & : & \isartrans{theory}{theory} \\ |
|
284 |
\isarcmd{instance} & : & \isartrans{theory}{proof(prove)} \\ |
|
7356 | 285 |
intro_classes & : & \isarmeth \\ |
7135 | 286 |
\end{matharray} |
287 |
||
7987 | 288 |
Axiomatic type classes are provided by Isabelle/Pure as a \emph{definitional} |
289 |
interface to type classes (cf.~\S\ref{sec:classes}). Thus any object logic |
|
290 |
may make use of this light-weight mechanism of abstract theories. See |
|
291 |
\cite{Wenzel:1997:TPHOL} for more information. There is also a tutorial on |
|
292 |
\emph{Using Axiomatic Type Classes in Isabelle} that is part of the standard |
|
293 |
Isabelle documentation. |
|
7335 | 294 |
%FIXME cite |
7135 | 295 |
|
296 |
\begin{rail} |
|
297 |
'axclass' classdecl (axmdecl prop comment? +) |
|
298 |
; |
|
299 |
'instance' (nameref '<' nameref | nameref '::' simplearity) comment? |
|
300 |
; |
|
301 |
\end{rail} |
|
302 |
||
7167 | 303 |
\begin{descr} |
7335 | 304 |
\item [$\isarkeyword{axclass}~c < \vec c~axms$] defines an axiomatic type |
305 |
class as the intersection of existing classes, with additional axioms |
|
306 |
holding. Class axioms may not contain more than one type variable. The |
|
307 |
class axioms (with implicit sort constraints added) are bound to the given |
|
308 |
names. Furthermore a class introduction rule is generated, which is |
|
7987 | 309 |
employed by method $intro_classes$ to support instantiation proofs of this |
7335 | 310 |
class. |
311 |
||
312 |
\item [$\isarkeyword{instance}~c@1 < c@2$ and $\isarkeyword{instance}~t :: |
|
313 |
(\vec s)c$] setup up a goal stating the class relation or type arity. The |
|
7987 | 314 |
proof would usually proceed by $intro_classes$, and then establish the |
315 |
characteristic theorems of the type classes involved. After finishing the |
|
316 |
proof, the theory will be augmented by a type signature declaration |
|
317 |
corresponding to the resulting theorem. |
|
318 |
\item [$intro_classes$] repeatedly expands all class introduction rules of |
|
7466 | 319 |
this theory. |
7167 | 320 |
\end{descr} |
7135 | 321 |
|
7987 | 322 |
%FIXME |
323 |
%See theory \texttt{HOL/Isar_examples/Group} for a simple example of using |
|
324 |
%axiomatic type classes, including instantiation proofs. |
|
7135 | 325 |
|
326 |
||
327 |
\section{The Simplifier} |
|
328 |
||
7321 | 329 |
\subsection{Simplification methods}\label{sec:simp} |
7315 | 330 |
|
8483 | 331 |
\indexisarmeth{simp}\indexisarmeth{simp-all} |
7315 | 332 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
333 |
simp & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
8483 | 334 |
simp_all & : & \isarmeth \\ |
7315 | 335 |
\end{matharray} |
336 |
||
8483 | 337 |
\railalias{simpall}{simp\_all} |
338 |
\railterm{simpall} |
|
339 |
||
7315 | 340 |
\begin{rail} |
8483 | 341 |
('simp' | simpall) ('!' ?) (simpmod * ) |
7315 | 342 |
; |
343 |
||
8483 | 344 |
simpmod: ('add' | 'del' | 'only' | 'split' (() | 'add' | 'del') | 'other') ':' thmrefs |
7315 | 345 |
; |
346 |
\end{rail} |
|
347 |
||
7321 | 348 |
\begin{descr} |
7897 | 349 |
\item [$simp$] invokes Isabelle's simplifier, after modifying the context by |
350 |
adding or deleting rules as specified. The \railtoken{only} modifier first |
|
8483 | 351 |
removes all other rewrite rules, congruences, and looper tactics (including |
352 |
splits), and then behaves like \railtoken{add}. |
|
7321 | 353 |
|
8483 | 354 |
The \railtoken{split} modifiers add or delete rules for the Splitter (see |
355 |
also \cite{isabelle-ref}), the default is to add. This works only if the |
|
356 |
Simplifier method has been properly setup to include the Splitter (all major |
|
357 |
object logics such HOL, HOLCF, FOL, ZF do this already). |
|
358 |
||
359 |
The \railtoken{other} modifier ignores its arguments. Nevertheless there |
|
360 |
may be side-effects on the context via attributes.\footnote{This provides a |
|
361 |
back door for arbitrary context manipulation.} |
|
362 |
||
363 |
\item [$simp_all$] is similar to $simp$, but acts on all goals. |
|
7321 | 364 |
\end{descr} |
365 |
||
8483 | 366 |
The $simp$ methods are based on \texttt{asm_full_simp_tac} |
367 |
\cite[\S10]{isabelle-ref}, but is much better behaved in practice. Just the |
|
368 |
local premises of the actual goal are involved by default. Additional facts |
|
369 |
may be inserted via forward-chaining (using $\THEN$, $\FROMNAME$ etc.). The |
|
370 |
full context of assumptions is only included in the $simp!$ versions, which |
|
371 |
should be used with some care, though. |
|
7321 | 372 |
|
8483 | 373 |
Note that there is no separate $split$ method. The effect of |
374 |
\texttt{split_tac} can be simulated via $(simp~only\colon~split\colon~thms)$. |
|
375 |
||
376 |
||
377 |
\subsection{Declaring rules} |
|
378 |
||
379 |
\indexisaratt{simp}\indexisaratt{split} |
|
7321 | 380 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
381 |
simp & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
8483 | 382 |
split & : & \isaratt \\ |
7321 | 383 |
\end{matharray} |
384 |
||
385 |
\begin{rail} |
|
8483 | 386 |
('simp' | 'split') (() | 'add' | 'del') |
7321 | 387 |
; |
388 |
\end{rail} |
|
389 |
||
390 |
\begin{descr} |
|
7466 | 391 |
\item [$simp$] adds or deletes rules from the theory or proof context (the |
392 |
default is to add). |
|
8483 | 393 |
\item [$split$] is similar to $simp$, but refers to split rules. |
7321 | 394 |
\end{descr} |
7319 | 395 |
|
7315 | 396 |
|
397 |
\subsection{Forward simplification} |
|
398 |
||
7391 | 399 |
\indexisaratt{simplify}\indexisaratt{asm-simplify} |
400 |
\indexisaratt{full-simplify}\indexisaratt{asm-full-simplify} |
|
7315 | 401 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
402 |
simplify & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
403 |
asm_simplify & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
404 |
full_simplify & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
405 |
asm_full_simplify & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
406 |
\end{matharray} |
|
407 |
||
7321 | 408 |
These attributes provide forward rules for simplification, which should be |
7905 | 409 |
used only very rarely. There are no separate options for adding or deleting |
410 |
simplification rules locally. |
|
411 |
||
412 |
See the ML functions of the same name in \cite[\S10]{isabelle-ref} for more |
|
413 |
information. |
|
7315 | 414 |
|
415 |
||
7135 | 416 |
\section{The Classical Reasoner} |
417 |
||
7335 | 418 |
\subsection{Basic methods}\label{sec:classical-basic} |
7321 | 419 |
|
7974 | 420 |
\indexisarmeth{rule}\indexisarmeth{intro} |
421 |
\indexisarmeth{elim}\indexisarmeth{default}\indexisarmeth{contradiction} |
|
7321 | 422 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
423 |
rule & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
424 |
intro & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
425 |
elim & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
426 |
contradiction & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
427 |
\end{matharray} |
|
428 |
||
429 |
\begin{rail} |
|
430 |
('rule' | 'intro' | 'elim') thmrefs |
|
431 |
; |
|
432 |
\end{rail} |
|
433 |
||
434 |
\begin{descr} |
|
7466 | 435 |
\item [$rule$] as offered by the classical reasoner is a refinement over the |
7905 | 436 |
primitive one (see \S\ref{sec:pure-meth}). In case that no rules are |
7466 | 437 |
provided as arguments, it automatically determines elimination and |
7321 | 438 |
introduction rules from the context (see also \S\ref{sec:classical-mod}). |
7335 | 439 |
In that form it is the default method for basic proof steps, such as |
440 |
$\PROOFNAME$ and ``$\DDOT$'' (two dots). |
|
7321 | 441 |
|
7466 | 442 |
\item [$intro$ and $elim$] repeatedly refine some goal by intro- or |
7905 | 443 |
elim-resolution, after having inserted any facts. Omitting the arguments |
7321 | 444 |
refers to any suitable rules from the context, otherwise only the explicitly |
7335 | 445 |
given ones may be applied. The latter form admits better control of what |
446 |
actually happens, thus it is very appropriate as an initial method for |
|
447 |
$\PROOFNAME$ that splits up certain connectives of the goal, before entering |
|
7987 | 448 |
the actual sub-proof. |
7458 | 449 |
|
7466 | 450 |
\item [$contradiction$] solves some goal by contradiction, deriving any result |
451 |
from both $\neg A$ and $A$. Facts, which are guaranteed to participate, may |
|
452 |
appear in either order. |
|
7321 | 453 |
\end{descr} |
454 |
||
455 |
||
7981 | 456 |
\subsection{Automated methods}\label{sec:classical-auto} |
7315 | 457 |
|
7321 | 458 |
\indexisarmeth{blast} |
7391 | 459 |
\indexisarmeth{fast}\indexisarmeth{best}\indexisarmeth{slow}\indexisarmeth{slow-best} |
7321 | 460 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
461 |
blast & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
462 |
fast & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
463 |
best & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
464 |
slow & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
465 |
slow_best & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
466 |
\end{matharray} |
|
467 |
||
468 |
\railalias{slowbest}{slow\_best} |
|
469 |
\railterm{slowbest} |
|
470 |
||
471 |
\begin{rail} |
|
7905 | 472 |
'blast' ('!' ?) nat? (clamod * ) |
7321 | 473 |
; |
7905 | 474 |
('fast' | 'best' | 'slow' | slowbest) ('!' ?) (clamod * ) |
7321 | 475 |
; |
476 |
||
8203
2fcc6017cb72
intro/elim/dest attributes: changed ! / !! flags to ? / ??;
wenzelm
parents:
8195
diff
changeset
|
477 |
clamod: (('intro' | 'elim' | 'dest') (() | '?' | '??') | 'del') ':' thmrefs |
7321 | 478 |
; |
479 |
\end{rail} |
|
480 |
||
481 |
\begin{descr} |
|
482 |
\item [$blast$] refers to the classical tableau prover (see \texttt{blast_tac} |
|
7335 | 483 |
in \cite[\S11]{isabelle-ref}). The optional argument specifies a |
7321 | 484 |
user-supplied search bound (default 20). |
485 |
\item [$fast$, $best$, $slow$, $slow_best$] refer to the generic classical |
|
7335 | 486 |
reasoner (see \cite[\S11]{isabelle-ref}, tactic \texttt{fast_tac} etc). |
7321 | 487 |
\end{descr} |
488 |
||
489 |
Any of above methods support additional modifiers of the context of classical |
|
490 |
rules. There semantics is analogous to the attributes given in |
|
7987 | 491 |
\S\ref{sec:classical-mod}. Facts provided by forward chaining are inserted |
492 |
into the goal before doing the search. The ``!''~argument causes the full |
|
493 |
context of assumptions to be included as well.\footnote{This is slightly less |
|
494 |
hazardous than for the Simplifier (see \S\ref{sec:simp}).} |
|
7321 | 495 |
|
7315 | 496 |
|
7981 | 497 |
\subsection{Combined automated methods} |
7315 | 498 |
|
7321 | 499 |
\indexisarmeth{auto}\indexisarmeth{force} |
500 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
|
501 |
force & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
502 |
auto & : & \isarmeth \\ |
|
503 |
\end{matharray} |
|
504 |
||
505 |
\begin{rail} |
|
7905 | 506 |
('force' | 'auto') ('!' ?) (clasimpmod * ) |
7321 | 507 |
; |
7315 | 508 |
|
8483 | 509 |
clasimpmod: ('simp' (() | 'add' | 'del' | 'only') | 'other' | |
510 |
('split' (() | 'add' | 'del')) | |
|
8203
2fcc6017cb72
intro/elim/dest attributes: changed ! / !! flags to ? / ??;
wenzelm
parents:
8195
diff
changeset
|
511 |
(('intro' | 'elim' | 'dest') (() | '?' | '??') | 'del')) ':' thmrefs |
7321 | 512 |
\end{rail} |
7315 | 513 |
|
7321 | 514 |
\begin{descr} |
515 |
\item [$force$ and $auto$] provide access to Isabelle's combined |
|
516 |
simplification and classical reasoning tactics. See \texttt{force_tac} and |
|
517 |
\texttt{auto_tac} in \cite[\S11]{isabelle-ref} for more information. The |
|
518 |
modifier arguments correspond to those given in \S\ref{sec:simp} and |
|
7905 | 519 |
\S\ref{sec:classical-auto}. Just note that the ones related to the |
520 |
Simplifier are prefixed by \railtoken{simp} here. |
|
7987 | 521 |
|
522 |
Facts provided by forward chaining are inserted into the goal before doing |
|
523 |
the search. The ``!''~argument causes the full context of assumptions to be |
|
524 |
included as well. |
|
7321 | 525 |
\end{descr} |
526 |
||
7987 | 527 |
|
8483 | 528 |
\subsection{Declaring rules}\label{sec:classical-mod} |
7135 | 529 |
|
7391 | 530 |
\indexisaratt{intro}\indexisaratt{elim}\indexisaratt{dest} |
531 |
\indexisaratt{iff}\indexisaratt{delrule} |
|
7321 | 532 |
\begin{matharray}{rcl} |
533 |
intro & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
534 |
elim & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
535 |
dest & : & \isaratt \\ |
|
7391 | 536 |
iff & : & \isaratt \\ |
7321 | 537 |
delrule & : & \isaratt \\ |
538 |
\end{matharray} |
|
7135 | 539 |
|
7321 | 540 |
\begin{rail} |
8203
2fcc6017cb72
intro/elim/dest attributes: changed ! / !! flags to ? / ??;
wenzelm
parents:
8195
diff
changeset
|
541 |
('intro' | 'elim' | 'dest') (() | '?' | '??') |
7321 | 542 |
; |
543 |
\end{rail} |
|
7135 | 544 |
|
7321 | 545 |
\begin{descr} |
7335 | 546 |
\item [$intro$, $elim$, $dest$] add introduction, elimination, destruct rules, |
547 |
respectively. By default, rules are considered as \emph{safe}, while a |
|
8203
2fcc6017cb72
intro/elim/dest attributes: changed ! / !! flags to ? / ??;
wenzelm
parents:
8195
diff
changeset
|
548 |
single ``?'' classifies as \emph{unsafe}, and ``??'' as \emph{extra} (i.e.\ |
7990 | 549 |
not applied in the search-oriented automated methods, but only in |
550 |
single-step methods such as $rule$). |
|
7335 | 551 |
|
7391 | 552 |
\item [$iff$] declares equations both as rewrite rules for the simplifier and |
553 |
classical reasoning rules. |
|
554 |
||
7335 | 555 |
\item [$delrule$] deletes introduction or elimination rules from the context. |
556 |
Note that destruction rules would have to be turned into elimination rules |
|
7321 | 557 |
first, e.g.\ by using the $elimify$ attribute. |
558 |
\end{descr} |
|
7135 | 559 |
|
8203
2fcc6017cb72
intro/elim/dest attributes: changed ! / !! flags to ? / ??;
wenzelm
parents:
8195
diff
changeset
|
560 |
|
7135 | 561 |
%%% Local Variables: |
562 |
%%% mode: latex |
|
563 |
%%% TeX-master: "isar-ref" |
|
564 |
%%% End: |