--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/Doc/IsarRef/Generic.thy Tue Aug 28 18:57:32 2012 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,1279 @@
+theory Generic
+imports Base Main
+begin
+
+chapter {* Generic tools and packages \label{ch:gen-tools} *}
+
+section {* Configuration options \label{sec:config} *}
+
+text {* Isabelle/Pure maintains a record of named configuration
+ options within the theory or proof context, with values of type
+ @{ML_type bool}, @{ML_type int}, @{ML_type real}, or @{ML_type
+ string}. Tools may declare options in ML, and then refer to these
+ values (relative to the context). Thus global reference variables
+ are easily avoided. The user may change the value of a
+ configuration option by means of an associated attribute of the same
+ name. This form of context declaration works particularly well with
+ commands such as @{command "declare"} or @{command "using"} like
+ this:
+*}
+
+declare [[show_main_goal = false]]
+
+notepad
+begin
+ note [[show_main_goal = true]]
+end
+
+text {* For historical reasons, some tools cannot take the full proof
+ context into account and merely refer to the background theory.
+ This is accommodated by configuration options being declared as
+ ``global'', which may not be changed within a local context.
+
+ \begin{matharray}{rcll}
+ @{command_def "print_configs"} & : & @{text "context \<rightarrow>"} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @{syntax name} ('=' ('true' | 'false' | @{syntax int} | @{syntax float} | @{syntax name}))?
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{command "print_configs"} prints the available configuration
+ options, with names, types, and current values.
+
+ \item @{text "name = value"} as an attribute expression modifies the
+ named option, with the syntax of the value depending on the option's
+ type. For @{ML_type bool} the default value is @{text true}. Any
+ attempt to change a global option in a local context is ignored.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+section {* Basic proof tools *}
+
+subsection {* Miscellaneous methods and attributes \label{sec:misc-meth-att} *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def unfold} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def fold} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def insert} & : & @{text method} \\[0.5ex]
+ @{method_def erule}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def drule}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def frule}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def intro} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def elim} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def succeed} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def fail} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ (@@{method fold} | @@{method unfold} | @@{method insert}) @{syntax thmrefs}
+ ;
+ (@@{method erule} | @@{method drule} | @@{method frule})
+ ('(' @{syntax nat} ')')? @{syntax thmrefs}
+ ;
+ (@@{method intro} | @@{method elim}) @{syntax thmrefs}?
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method unfold}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} and @{method fold}~@{text
+ "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} expand (or fold back) the given definitions throughout
+ all goals; any chained facts provided are inserted into the goal and
+ subject to rewriting as well.
+
+ \item @{method insert}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} inserts theorems as facts
+ into all goals of the proof state. Note that current facts
+ indicated for forward chaining are ignored.
+
+ \item @{method erule}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"}, @{method
+ drule}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"}, and @{method frule}~@{text
+ "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} are similar to the basic @{method rule}
+ method (see \secref{sec:pure-meth-att}), but apply rules by
+ elim-resolution, destruct-resolution, and forward-resolution,
+ respectively \cite{isabelle-implementation}. The optional natural
+ number argument (default 0) specifies additional assumption steps to
+ be performed here.
+
+ Note that these methods are improper ones, mainly serving for
+ experimentation and tactic script emulation. Different modes of
+ basic rule application are usually expressed in Isar at the proof
+ language level, rather than via implicit proof state manipulations.
+ For example, a proper single-step elimination would be done using
+ the plain @{method rule} method, with forward chaining of current
+ facts.
+
+ \item @{method intro} and @{method elim} repeatedly refine some goal
+ by intro- or elim-resolution, after having inserted any chained
+ facts. Exactly the rules given as arguments are taken into account;
+ this allows fine-tuned decomposition of a proof problem, in contrast
+ to common automated tools.
+
+ \item @{method succeed} yields a single (unchanged) result; it is
+ the identity of the ``@{text ","}'' method combinator (cf.\
+ \secref{sec:proof-meth}).
+
+ \item @{method fail} yields an empty result sequence; it is the
+ identity of the ``@{text "|"}'' method combinator (cf.\
+ \secref{sec:proof-meth}).
+
+ \end{description}
+
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{attribute_def tagged} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def untagged} & : & @{text attribute} \\[0.5ex]
+ @{attribute_def THEN} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def unfolded} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def folded} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def abs_def} & : & @{text attribute} \\[0.5ex]
+ @{attribute_def rotated} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def (Pure) elim_format} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def standard}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def no_vars}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{attribute tagged} @{syntax name} @{syntax name}
+ ;
+ @@{attribute untagged} @{syntax name}
+ ;
+ @@{attribute THEN} ('[' @{syntax nat} ']')? @{syntax thmref}
+ ;
+ (@@{attribute unfolded} | @@{attribute folded}) @{syntax thmrefs}
+ ;
+ @@{attribute rotated} @{syntax int}?
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{attribute tagged}~@{text "name value"} and @{attribute
+ untagged}~@{text name} add and remove \emph{tags} of some theorem.
+ Tags may be any list of string pairs that serve as formal comment.
+ The first string is considered the tag name, the second its value.
+ Note that @{attribute untagged} removes any tags of the same name.
+
+ \item @{attribute THEN}~@{text a} composes rules by resolution; it
+ resolves with the first premise of @{text a} (an alternative
+ position may be also specified). See also @{ML_op "RS"} in
+ \cite{isabelle-implementation}.
+
+ \item @{attribute unfolded}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} and @{attribute
+ folded}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} expand and fold back again the given
+ definitions throughout a rule.
+
+ \item @{attribute abs_def} turns an equation of the form @{prop "f x
+ y \<equiv> t"} into @{prop "f \<equiv> \<lambda>x y. t"}, which ensures that @{method
+ simp} or @{method unfold} steps always expand it. This also works
+ for object-logic equality.
+
+ \item @{attribute rotated}~@{text n} rotate the premises of a
+ theorem by @{text n} (default 1).
+
+ \item @{attribute (Pure) elim_format} turns a destruction rule into
+ elimination rule format, by resolving with the rule @{prop "PROP A \<Longrightarrow>
+ (PROP A \<Longrightarrow> PROP B) \<Longrightarrow> PROP B"}.
+
+ Note that the Classical Reasoner (\secref{sec:classical}) provides
+ its own version of this operation.
+
+ \item @{attribute standard} puts a theorem into the standard form of
+ object-rules at the outermost theory level. Note that this
+ operation violates the local proof context (including active
+ locales).
+
+ \item @{attribute no_vars} replaces schematic variables by free
+ ones; this is mainly for tuning output of pretty printed theorems.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Low-level equational reasoning *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def subst} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def hypsubst} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def split} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{method subst} ('(' 'asm' ')')? \\ ('(' (@{syntax nat}+) ')')? @{syntax thmref}
+ ;
+ @@{method split} @{syntax thmrefs}
+ "}
+
+ These methods provide low-level facilities for equational reasoning
+ that are intended for specialized applications only. Normally,
+ single step calculations would be performed in a structured text
+ (see also \secref{sec:calculation}), while the Simplifier methods
+ provide the canonical way for automated normalization (see
+ \secref{sec:simplifier}).
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method subst}~@{text eq} performs a single substitution step
+ using rule @{text eq}, which may be either a meta or object
+ equality.
+
+ \item @{method subst}~@{text "(asm) eq"} substitutes in an
+ assumption.
+
+ \item @{method subst}~@{text "(i \<dots> j) eq"} performs several
+ substitutions in the conclusion. The numbers @{text i} to @{text j}
+ indicate the positions to substitute at. Positions are ordered from
+ the top of the term tree moving down from left to right. For
+ example, in @{text "(a + b) + (c + d)"} there are three positions
+ where commutativity of @{text "+"} is applicable: 1 refers to @{text
+ "a + b"}, 2 to the whole term, and 3 to @{text "c + d"}.
+
+ If the positions in the list @{text "(i \<dots> j)"} are non-overlapping
+ (e.g.\ @{text "(2 3)"} in @{text "(a + b) + (c + d)"}) you may
+ assume all substitutions are performed simultaneously. Otherwise
+ the behaviour of @{text subst} is not specified.
+
+ \item @{method subst}~@{text "(asm) (i \<dots> j) eq"} performs the
+ substitutions in the assumptions. The positions refer to the
+ assumptions in order from left to right. For example, given in a
+ goal of the form @{text "P (a + b) \<Longrightarrow> P (c + d) \<Longrightarrow> \<dots>"}, position 1 of
+ commutativity of @{text "+"} is the subterm @{text "a + b"} and
+ position 2 is the subterm @{text "c + d"}.
+
+ \item @{method hypsubst} performs substitution using some
+ assumption; this only works for equations of the form @{text "x =
+ t"} where @{text x} is a free or bound variable.
+
+ \item @{method split}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} performs single-step case
+ splitting using the given rules. Splitting is performed in the
+ conclusion or some assumption of the subgoal, depending of the
+ structure of the rule.
+
+ Note that the @{method simp} method already involves repeated
+ application of split rules as declared in the current context, using
+ @{attribute split}, for example.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Further tactic emulations \label{sec:tactics} *}
+
+text {*
+ The following improper proof methods emulate traditional tactics.
+ These admit direct access to the goal state, which is normally
+ considered harmful! In particular, this may involve both numbered
+ goal addressing (default 1), and dynamic instantiation within the
+ scope of some subgoal.
+
+ \begin{warn}
+ Dynamic instantiations refer to universally quantified parameters
+ of a subgoal (the dynamic context) rather than fixed variables and
+ term abbreviations of a (static) Isar context.
+ \end{warn}
+
+ Tactic emulation methods, unlike their ML counterparts, admit
+ simultaneous instantiation from both dynamic and static contexts.
+ If names occur in both contexts goal parameters hide locally fixed
+ variables. Likewise, schematic variables refer to term
+ abbreviations, if present in the static context. Otherwise the
+ schematic variable is interpreted as a schematic variable and left
+ to be solved by unification with certain parts of the subgoal.
+
+ Note that the tactic emulation proof methods in Isabelle/Isar are
+ consistently named @{text foo_tac}. Note also that variable names
+ occurring on left hand sides of instantiations must be preceded by a
+ question mark if they coincide with a keyword or contain dots. This
+ is consistent with the attribute @{attribute "where"} (see
+ \secref{sec:pure-meth-att}).
+
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def rule_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def erule_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def drule_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def frule_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def cut_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def thin_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def subgoal_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def rename_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def rotate_tac}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def tactic}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def raw_tactic}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ (@@{method rule_tac} | @@{method erule_tac} | @@{method drule_tac} |
+ @@{method frule_tac} | @@{method cut_tac} | @@{method thin_tac}) @{syntax goal_spec}? \\
+ ( dynamic_insts @'in' @{syntax thmref} | @{syntax thmrefs} )
+ ;
+ @@{method subgoal_tac} @{syntax goal_spec}? (@{syntax prop} +)
+ ;
+ @@{method rename_tac} @{syntax goal_spec}? (@{syntax name} +)
+ ;
+ @@{method rotate_tac} @{syntax goal_spec}? @{syntax int}?
+ ;
+ (@@{method tactic} | @@{method raw_tactic}) @{syntax text}
+ ;
+
+ dynamic_insts: ((@{syntax name} '=' @{syntax term}) + @'and')
+ "}
+
+\begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method rule_tac} etc. do resolution of rules with explicit
+ instantiation. This works the same way as the ML tactics @{ML
+ res_inst_tac} etc. (see \cite{isabelle-implementation})
+
+ Multiple rules may be only given if there is no instantiation; then
+ @{method rule_tac} is the same as @{ML resolve_tac} in ML (see
+ \cite{isabelle-implementation}).
+
+ \item @{method cut_tac} inserts facts into the proof state as
+ assumption of a subgoal; instantiations may be given as well. Note
+ that the scope of schematic variables is spread over the main goal
+ statement and rule premises are turned into new subgoals. This is
+ in contrast to the regular method @{method insert} which inserts
+ closed rule statements.
+
+ \item @{method thin_tac}~@{text \<phi>} deletes the specified premise
+ from a subgoal. Note that @{text \<phi>} may contain schematic
+ variables, to abbreviate the intended proposition; the first
+ matching subgoal premise will be deleted. Removing useless premises
+ from a subgoal increases its readability and can make search tactics
+ run faster.
+
+ \item @{method subgoal_tac}~@{text "\<phi>\<^sub>1 \<dots> \<phi>\<^sub>n"} adds the propositions
+ @{text "\<phi>\<^sub>1 \<dots> \<phi>\<^sub>n"} as local premises to a subgoal, and poses the same
+ as new subgoals (in the original context).
+
+ \item @{method rename_tac}~@{text "x\<^sub>1 \<dots> x\<^sub>n"} renames parameters of a
+ goal according to the list @{text "x\<^sub>1, \<dots>, x\<^sub>n"}, which refers to the
+ \emph{suffix} of variables.
+
+ \item @{method rotate_tac}~@{text n} rotates the premises of a
+ subgoal by @{text n} positions: from right to left if @{text n} is
+ positive, and from left to right if @{text n} is negative; the
+ default value is 1.
+
+ \item @{method tactic}~@{text "text"} produces a proof method from
+ any ML text of type @{ML_type tactic}. Apart from the usual ML
+ environment and the current proof context, the ML code may refer to
+ the locally bound values @{ML_text facts}, which indicates any
+ current facts used for forward-chaining.
+
+ \item @{method raw_tactic} is similar to @{method tactic}, but
+ presents the goal state in its raw internal form, where simultaneous
+ subgoals appear as conjunction of the logical framework instead of
+ the usual split into several subgoals. While feature this is useful
+ for debugging of complex method definitions, it should not never
+ appear in production theories.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+section {* The Simplifier \label{sec:simplifier} *}
+
+subsection {* Simplification methods *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def simp} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def simp_all} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ (@@{method simp} | @@{method simp_all}) opt? (@{syntax simpmod} * )
+ ;
+
+ opt: '(' ('no_asm' | 'no_asm_simp' | 'no_asm_use' | 'asm_lr' ) ')'
+ ;
+ @{syntax_def simpmod}: ('add' | 'del' | 'only' | 'cong' (() | 'add' | 'del') |
+ 'split' (() | 'add' | 'del')) ':' @{syntax thmrefs}
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method simp} invokes the Simplifier, after declaring
+ additional rules according to the arguments given. Note that the
+ @{text only} modifier first removes all other rewrite rules,
+ congruences, and looper tactics (including splits), and then behaves
+ like @{text add}.
+
+ \medskip The @{text cong} modifiers add or delete Simplifier
+ congruence rules (see also \secref{sec:simp-cong}), the default is
+ to add.
+
+ \medskip The @{text split} modifiers add or delete rules for the
+ Splitter (see also \cite{isabelle-ref}), the default is to add.
+ This works only if the Simplifier method has been properly setup to
+ include the Splitter (all major object logics such HOL, HOLCF, FOL,
+ ZF do this already).
+
+ \item @{method simp_all} is similar to @{method simp}, but acts on
+ all goals (backwards from the last to the first one).
+
+ \end{description}
+
+ By default the Simplifier methods take local assumptions fully into
+ account, using equational assumptions in the subsequent
+ normalization process, or simplifying assumptions themselves (cf.\
+ @{ML asm_full_simp_tac} in \cite{isabelle-ref}). In structured
+ proofs this is usually quite well behaved in practice: just the
+ local premises of the actual goal are involved, additional facts may
+ be inserted via explicit forward-chaining (via @{command "then"},
+ @{command "from"}, @{command "using"} etc.).
+
+ Additional Simplifier options may be specified to tune the behavior
+ further (mostly for unstructured scripts with many accidental local
+ facts): ``@{text "(no_asm)"}'' means assumptions are ignored
+ completely (cf.\ @{ML simp_tac}), ``@{text "(no_asm_simp)"}'' means
+ assumptions are used in the simplification of the conclusion but are
+ not themselves simplified (cf.\ @{ML asm_simp_tac}), and ``@{text
+ "(no_asm_use)"}'' means assumptions are simplified but are not used
+ in the simplification of each other or the conclusion (cf.\ @{ML
+ full_simp_tac}). For compatibility reasons, there is also an option
+ ``@{text "(asm_lr)"}'', which means that an assumption is only used
+ for simplifying assumptions which are to the right of it (cf.\ @{ML
+ asm_lr_simp_tac}).
+
+ The configuration option @{text "depth_limit"} limits the number of
+ recursive invocations of the simplifier during conditional
+ rewriting.
+
+ \medskip The Splitter package is usually configured to work as part
+ of the Simplifier. The effect of repeatedly applying @{ML
+ split_tac} can be simulated by ``@{text "(simp only: split:
+ a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n)"}''. There is also a separate @{text split}
+ method available for single-step case splitting.
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Declaring rules *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{command_def "print_simpset"}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text "context \<rightarrow>"} \\
+ @{attribute_def simp} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def split} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ (@@{attribute simp} | @@{attribute split}) (() | 'add' | 'del')
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{command "print_simpset"} prints the collection of rules
+ declared to the Simplifier, which is also known as ``simpset''
+ internally \cite{isabelle-ref}.
+
+ \item @{attribute simp} declares simplification rules.
+
+ \item @{attribute split} declares case split rules.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Congruence rules\label{sec:simp-cong} *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{attribute_def cong} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{attribute cong} (() | 'add' | 'del')
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{attribute cong} declares congruence rules to the Simplifier
+ context.
+
+ \end{description}
+
+ Congruence rules are equalities of the form @{text [display]
+ "\<dots> \<Longrightarrow> f ?x\<^sub>1 \<dots> ?x\<^sub>n = f ?y\<^sub>1 \<dots> ?y\<^sub>n"}
+
+ This controls the simplification of the arguments of @{text f}. For
+ example, some arguments can be simplified under additional
+ assumptions: @{text [display] "?P\<^sub>1 \<longleftrightarrow> ?Q\<^sub>1 \<Longrightarrow> (?Q\<^sub>1 \<Longrightarrow> ?P\<^sub>2 \<longleftrightarrow> ?Q\<^sub>2) \<Longrightarrow>
+ (?P\<^sub>1 \<longrightarrow> ?P\<^sub>2) \<longleftrightarrow> (?Q\<^sub>1 \<longrightarrow> ?Q\<^sub>2)"}
+
+ Given this rule, the simplifier assumes @{text "?Q\<^sub>1"} and extracts
+ rewrite rules from it when simplifying @{text "?P\<^sub>2"}. Such local
+ assumptions are effective for rewriting formulae such as @{text "x =
+ 0 \<longrightarrow> y + x = y"}.
+
+ %FIXME
+ %The local assumptions are also provided as theorems to the solver;
+ %see \secref{sec:simp-solver} below.
+
+ \medskip The following congruence rule for bounded quantifiers also
+ supplies contextual information --- about the bound variable:
+ @{text [display] "(?A = ?B) \<Longrightarrow> (\<And>x. x \<in> ?B \<Longrightarrow> ?P x \<longleftrightarrow> ?Q x) \<Longrightarrow>
+ (\<forall>x \<in> ?A. ?P x) \<longleftrightarrow> (\<forall>x \<in> ?B. ?Q x)"}
+
+ \medskip This congruence rule for conditional expressions can
+ supply contextual information for simplifying the arms:
+ @{text [display] "?p = ?q \<Longrightarrow> (?q \<Longrightarrow> ?a = ?c) \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> ?q \<Longrightarrow> ?b = ?d) \<Longrightarrow>
+ (if ?p then ?a else ?b) = (if ?q then ?c else ?d)"}
+
+ A congruence rule can also \emph{prevent} simplification of some
+ arguments. Here is an alternative congruence rule for conditional
+ expressions that conforms to non-strict functional evaluation:
+ @{text [display] "?p = ?q \<Longrightarrow> (if ?p then ?a else ?b) = (if ?q then ?a else ?b)"}
+
+ Only the first argument is simplified; the others remain unchanged.
+ This can make simplification much faster, but may require an extra
+ case split over the condition @{text "?q"} to prove the goal.
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Simplification procedures *}
+
+text {* Simplification procedures are ML functions that produce proven
+ rewrite rules on demand. They are associated with higher-order
+ patterns that approximate the left-hand sides of equations. The
+ Simplifier first matches the current redex against one of the LHS
+ patterns; if this succeeds, the corresponding ML function is
+ invoked, passing the Simplifier context and redex term. Thus rules
+ may be specifically fashioned for particular situations, resulting
+ in a more powerful mechanism than term rewriting by a fixed set of
+ rules.
+
+ Any successful result needs to be a (possibly conditional) rewrite
+ rule @{text "t \<equiv> u"} that is applicable to the current redex. The
+ rule will be applied just as any ordinary rewrite rule. It is
+ expected to be already in \emph{internal form}, bypassing the
+ automatic preprocessing of object-level equivalences.
+
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{command_def "simproc_setup"} & : & @{text "local_theory \<rightarrow> local_theory"} \\
+ simproc & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{command simproc_setup} @{syntax name} '(' (@{syntax term} + '|') ')' '='
+ @{syntax text} \\ (@'identifier' (@{syntax nameref}+))?
+ ;
+
+ @@{attribute simproc} (('add' ':')? | 'del' ':') (@{syntax name}+)
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{command "simproc_setup"} defines a named simplification
+ procedure that is invoked by the Simplifier whenever any of the
+ given term patterns match the current redex. The implementation,
+ which is provided as ML source text, needs to be of type @{ML_type
+ "morphism -> simpset -> cterm -> thm option"}, where the @{ML_type
+ cterm} represents the current redex @{text r} and the result is
+ supposed to be some proven rewrite rule @{text "r \<equiv> r'"} (or a
+ generalized version), or @{ML NONE} to indicate failure. The
+ @{ML_type simpset} argument holds the full context of the current
+ Simplifier invocation, including the actual Isar proof context. The
+ @{ML_type morphism} informs about the difference of the original
+ compilation context wrt.\ the one of the actual application later
+ on. The optional @{keyword "identifier"} specifies theorems that
+ represent the logical content of the abstract theory of this
+ simproc.
+
+ Morphisms and identifiers are only relevant for simprocs that are
+ defined within a local target context, e.g.\ in a locale.
+
+ \item @{text "simproc add: name"} and @{text "simproc del: name"}
+ add or delete named simprocs to the current Simplifier context. The
+ default is to add a simproc. Note that @{command "simproc_setup"}
+ already adds the new simproc to the subsequent context.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+subsubsection {* Example *}
+
+text {* The following simplification procedure for @{thm
+ [source=false, show_types] unit_eq} in HOL performs fine-grained
+ control over rule application, beyond higher-order pattern matching.
+ Declaring @{thm unit_eq} as @{attribute simp} directly would make
+ the simplifier loop! Note that a version of this simplification
+ procedure is already active in Isabelle/HOL. *}
+
+simproc_setup unit ("x::unit") = {*
+ fn _ => fn _ => fn ct =>
+ if HOLogic.is_unit (term_of ct) then NONE
+ else SOME (mk_meta_eq @{thm unit_eq})
+*}
+
+text {* Since the Simplifier applies simplification procedures
+ frequently, it is important to make the failure check in ML
+ reasonably fast. *}
+
+
+subsection {* Forward simplification *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{attribute_def simplified} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{attribute simplified} opt? @{syntax thmrefs}?
+ ;
+
+ opt: '(' ('no_asm' | 'no_asm_simp' | 'no_asm_use') ')'
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{attribute simplified}~@{text "a\<^sub>1 \<dots> a\<^sub>n"} causes a theorem to
+ be simplified, either by exactly the specified rules @{text "a\<^sub>1, \<dots>,
+ a\<^sub>n"}, or the implicit Simplifier context if no arguments are given.
+ The result is fully simplified by default, including assumptions and
+ conclusion; the options @{text no_asm} etc.\ tune the Simplifier in
+ the same way as the for the @{text simp} method.
+
+ Note that forward simplification restricts the simplifier to its
+ most basic operation of term rewriting; solver and looper tactics
+ \cite{isabelle-ref} are \emph{not} involved here. The @{text
+ simplified} attribute should be only rarely required under normal
+ circumstances.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+section {* The Classical Reasoner \label{sec:classical} *}
+
+subsection {* Basic concepts *}
+
+text {* Although Isabelle is generic, many users will be working in
+ some extension of classical first-order logic. Isabelle/ZF is built
+ upon theory FOL, while Isabelle/HOL conceptually contains
+ first-order logic as a fragment. Theorem-proving in predicate logic
+ is undecidable, but many automated strategies have been developed to
+ assist in this task.
+
+ Isabelle's classical reasoner is a generic package that accepts
+ certain information about a logic and delivers a suite of automatic
+ proof tools, based on rules that are classified and declared in the
+ context. These proof procedures are slow and simplistic compared
+ with high-end automated theorem provers, but they can save
+ considerable time and effort in practice. They can prove theorems
+ such as Pelletier's \cite{pelletier86} problems 40 and 41 in a few
+ milliseconds (including full proof reconstruction): *}
+
+lemma "(\<exists>y. \<forall>x. F x y \<longleftrightarrow> F x x) \<longrightarrow> \<not> (\<forall>x. \<exists>y. \<forall>z. F z y \<longleftrightarrow> \<not> F z x)"
+ by blast
+
+lemma "(\<forall>z. \<exists>y. \<forall>x. f x y \<longleftrightarrow> f x z \<and> \<not> f x x) \<longrightarrow> \<not> (\<exists>z. \<forall>x. f x z)"
+ by blast
+
+text {* The proof tools are generic. They are not restricted to
+ first-order logic, and have been heavily used in the development of
+ the Isabelle/HOL library and applications. The tactics can be
+ traced, and their components can be called directly; in this manner,
+ any proof can be viewed interactively. *}
+
+
+subsubsection {* The sequent calculus *}
+
+text {* Isabelle supports natural deduction, which is easy to use for
+ interactive proof. But natural deduction does not easily lend
+ itself to automation, and has a bias towards intuitionism. For
+ certain proofs in classical logic, it can not be called natural.
+ The \emph{sequent calculus}, a generalization of natural deduction,
+ is easier to automate.
+
+ A \textbf{sequent} has the form @{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>"}, where @{text "\<Gamma>"}
+ and @{text "\<Delta>"} are sets of formulae.\footnote{For first-order
+ logic, sequents can equivalently be made from lists or multisets of
+ formulae.} The sequent @{text "P\<^sub>1, \<dots>, P\<^sub>m \<turnstile> Q\<^sub>1, \<dots>, Q\<^sub>n"} is
+ \textbf{valid} if @{text "P\<^sub>1 \<and> \<dots> \<and> P\<^sub>m"} implies @{text "Q\<^sub>1 \<or> \<dots> \<or>
+ Q\<^sub>n"}. Thus @{text "P\<^sub>1, \<dots>, P\<^sub>m"} represent assumptions, each of which
+ is true, while @{text "Q\<^sub>1, \<dots>, Q\<^sub>n"} represent alternative goals. A
+ sequent is \textbf{basic} if its left and right sides have a common
+ formula, as in @{text "P, Q \<turnstile> Q, R"}; basic sequents are trivially
+ valid.
+
+ Sequent rules are classified as \textbf{right} or \textbf{left},
+ indicating which side of the @{text "\<turnstile>"} symbol they operate on.
+ Rules that operate on the right side are analogous to natural
+ deduction's introduction rules, and left rules are analogous to
+ elimination rules. The sequent calculus analogue of @{text "(\<longrightarrow>I)"}
+ is the rule
+ \[
+ \infer[@{text "(\<longrightarrow>R)"}]{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>, P \<longrightarrow> Q"}}{@{text "P, \<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>, Q"}}
+ \]
+ Applying the rule backwards, this breaks down some implication on
+ the right side of a sequent; @{text "\<Gamma>"} and @{text "\<Delta>"} stand for
+ the sets of formulae that are unaffected by the inference. The
+ analogue of the pair @{text "(\<or>I1)"} and @{text "(\<or>I2)"} is the
+ single rule
+ \[
+ \infer[@{text "(\<or>R)"}]{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>, P \<or> Q"}}{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>, P, Q"}}
+ \]
+ This breaks down some disjunction on the right side, replacing it by
+ both disjuncts. Thus, the sequent calculus is a kind of
+ multiple-conclusion logic.
+
+ To illustrate the use of multiple formulae on the right, let us
+ prove the classical theorem @{text "(P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<or> (Q \<longrightarrow> P)"}. Working
+ backwards, we reduce this formula to a basic sequent:
+ \[
+ \infer[@{text "(\<or>R)"}]{@{text "\<turnstile> (P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<or> (Q \<longrightarrow> P)"}}
+ {\infer[@{text "(\<longrightarrow>R)"}]{@{text "\<turnstile> (P \<longrightarrow> Q), (Q \<longrightarrow> P)"}}
+ {\infer[@{text "(\<longrightarrow>R)"}]{@{text "P \<turnstile> Q, (Q \<longrightarrow> P)"}}
+ {@{text "P, Q \<turnstile> Q, P"}}}}
+ \]
+
+ This example is typical of the sequent calculus: start with the
+ desired theorem and apply rules backwards in a fairly arbitrary
+ manner. This yields a surprisingly effective proof procedure.
+ Quantifiers add only few complications, since Isabelle handles
+ parameters and schematic variables. See \cite[Chapter
+ 10]{paulson-ml2} for further discussion. *}
+
+
+subsubsection {* Simulating sequents by natural deduction *}
+
+text {* Isabelle can represent sequents directly, as in the
+ object-logic LK. But natural deduction is easier to work with, and
+ most object-logics employ it. Fortunately, we can simulate the
+ sequent @{text "P\<^sub>1, \<dots>, P\<^sub>m \<turnstile> Q\<^sub>1, \<dots>, Q\<^sub>n"} by the Isabelle formula
+ @{text "P\<^sub>1 \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> \<Longrightarrow> P\<^sub>m \<Longrightarrow> \<not> Q\<^sub>2 \<Longrightarrow> ... \<Longrightarrow> \<not> Q\<^sub>n \<Longrightarrow> Q\<^sub>1"} where the order of
+ the assumptions and the choice of @{text "Q\<^sub>1"} are arbitrary.
+ Elim-resolution plays a key role in simulating sequent proofs.
+
+ We can easily handle reasoning on the left. Elim-resolution with
+ the rules @{text "(\<or>E)"}, @{text "(\<bottom>E)"} and @{text "(\<exists>E)"} achieves
+ a similar effect as the corresponding sequent rules. For the other
+ connectives, we use sequent-style elimination rules instead of
+ destruction rules such as @{text "(\<and>E1, 2)"} and @{text "(\<forall>E)"}.
+ But note that the rule @{text "(\<not>L)"} has no effect under our
+ representation of sequents!
+ \[
+ \infer[@{text "(\<not>L)"}]{@{text "\<not> P, \<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>"}}{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>, P"}}
+ \]
+
+ What about reasoning on the right? Introduction rules can only
+ affect the formula in the conclusion, namely @{text "Q\<^sub>1"}. The
+ other right-side formulae are represented as negated assumptions,
+ @{text "\<not> Q\<^sub>2, \<dots>, \<not> Q\<^sub>n"}. In order to operate on one of these, it
+ must first be exchanged with @{text "Q\<^sub>1"}. Elim-resolution with the
+ @{text swap} rule has this effect: @{text "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> P) \<Longrightarrow> R"}
+
+ To ensure that swaps occur only when necessary, each introduction
+ rule is converted into a swapped form: it is resolved with the
+ second premise of @{text "(swap)"}. The swapped form of @{text
+ "(\<and>I)"}, which might be called @{text "(\<not>\<and>E)"}, is
+ @{text [display] "\<not> (P \<and> Q) \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> P) \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> R"}
+
+ Similarly, the swapped form of @{text "(\<longrightarrow>I)"} is
+ @{text [display] "\<not> (P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> P \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> R"}
+
+ Swapped introduction rules are applied using elim-resolution, which
+ deletes the negated formula. Our representation of sequents also
+ requires the use of ordinary introduction rules. If we had no
+ regard for readability of intermediate goal states, we could treat
+ the right side more uniformly by representing sequents as @{text
+ [display] "P\<^sub>1 \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> \<Longrightarrow> P\<^sub>m \<Longrightarrow> \<not> Q\<^sub>1 \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> \<Longrightarrow> \<not> Q\<^sub>n \<Longrightarrow> \<bottom>"}
+*}
+
+
+subsubsection {* Extra rules for the sequent calculus *}
+
+text {* As mentioned, destruction rules such as @{text "(\<and>E1, 2)"} and
+ @{text "(\<forall>E)"} must be replaced by sequent-style elimination rules.
+ In addition, we need rules to embody the classical equivalence
+ between @{text "P \<longrightarrow> Q"} and @{text "\<not> P \<or> Q"}. The introduction
+ rules @{text "(\<or>I1, 2)"} are replaced by a rule that simulates
+ @{text "(\<or>R)"}: @{text [display] "(\<not> Q \<Longrightarrow> P) \<Longrightarrow> P \<or> Q"}
+
+ The destruction rule @{text "(\<longrightarrow>E)"} is replaced by @{text [display]
+ "(P \<longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> R) \<Longrightarrow> (Q \<Longrightarrow> R) \<Longrightarrow> R"}
+
+ Quantifier replication also requires special rules. In classical
+ logic, @{text "\<exists>x. P x"} is equivalent to @{text "\<not> (\<forall>x. \<not> P x)"};
+ the rules @{text "(\<exists>R)"} and @{text "(\<forall>L)"} are dual:
+ \[
+ \infer[@{text "(\<exists>R)"}]{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>, \<exists>x. P x"}}{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>, \<exists>x. P x, P t"}}
+ \qquad
+ \infer[@{text "(\<forall>L)"}]{@{text "\<forall>x. P x, \<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>"}}{@{text "P t, \<forall>x. P x, \<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<Delta>"}}
+ \]
+ Thus both kinds of quantifier may be replicated. Theorems requiring
+ multiple uses of a universal formula are easy to invent; consider
+ @{text [display] "(\<forall>x. P x \<longrightarrow> P (f x)) \<and> P a \<longrightarrow> P (f\<^sup>n a)"} for any
+ @{text "n > 1"}. Natural examples of the multiple use of an
+ existential formula are rare; a standard one is @{text "\<exists>x. \<forall>y. P x
+ \<longrightarrow> P y"}.
+
+ Forgoing quantifier replication loses completeness, but gains
+ decidability, since the search space becomes finite. Many useful
+ theorems can be proved without replication, and the search generally
+ delivers its verdict in a reasonable time. To adopt this approach,
+ represent the sequent rules @{text "(\<exists>R)"}, @{text "(\<exists>L)"} and
+ @{text "(\<forall>R)"} by @{text "(\<exists>I)"}, @{text "(\<exists>E)"} and @{text "(\<forall>I)"},
+ respectively, and put @{text "(\<forall>E)"} into elimination form: @{text
+ [display] "\<forall>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> (P t \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> Q"}
+
+ Elim-resolution with this rule will delete the universal formula
+ after a single use. To replicate universal quantifiers, replace the
+ rule by @{text [display] "\<forall>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> (P t \<Longrightarrow> \<forall>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> Q"}
+
+ To replicate existential quantifiers, replace @{text "(\<exists>I)"} by
+ @{text [display] "(\<not> (\<exists>x. P x) \<Longrightarrow> P t) \<Longrightarrow> \<exists>x. P x"}
+
+ All introduction rules mentioned above are also useful in swapped
+ form.
+
+ Replication makes the search space infinite; we must apply the rules
+ with care. The classical reasoner distinguishes between safe and
+ unsafe rules, applying the latter only when there is no alternative.
+ Depth-first search may well go down a blind alley; best-first search
+ is better behaved in an infinite search space. However, quantifier
+ replication is too expensive to prove any but the simplest theorems.
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Rule declarations *}
+
+text {* The proof tools of the Classical Reasoner depend on
+ collections of rules declared in the context, which are classified
+ as introduction, elimination or destruction and as \emph{safe} or
+ \emph{unsafe}. In general, safe rules can be attempted blindly,
+ while unsafe rules must be used with care. A safe rule must never
+ reduce a provable goal to an unprovable set of subgoals.
+
+ The rule @{text "P \<Longrightarrow> P \<or> Q"} is unsafe because it reduces @{text "P
+ \<or> Q"} to @{text "P"}, which might turn out as premature choice of an
+ unprovable subgoal. Any rule is unsafe whose premises contain new
+ unknowns. The elimination rule @{text "\<forall>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> (P t \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> Q"} is
+ unsafe, since it is applied via elim-resolution, which discards the
+ assumption @{text "\<forall>x. P x"} and replaces it by the weaker
+ assumption @{text "P t"}. The rule @{text "P t \<Longrightarrow> \<exists>x. P x"} is
+ unsafe for similar reasons. The quantifier duplication rule @{text
+ "\<forall>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> (P t \<Longrightarrow> \<forall>x. P x \<Longrightarrow> Q) \<Longrightarrow> Q"} is unsafe in a different sense:
+ since it keeps the assumption @{text "\<forall>x. P x"}, it is prone to
+ looping. In classical first-order logic, all rules are safe except
+ those mentioned above.
+
+ The safe~/ unsafe distinction is vague, and may be regarded merely
+ as a way of giving some rules priority over others. One could argue
+ that @{text "(\<or>E)"} is unsafe, because repeated application of it
+ could generate exponentially many subgoals. Induction rules are
+ unsafe because inductive proofs are difficult to set up
+ automatically. Any inference is unsafe that instantiates an unknown
+ in the proof state --- thus matching must be used, rather than
+ unification. Even proof by assumption is unsafe if it instantiates
+ unknowns shared with other subgoals.
+
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{command_def "print_claset"}@{text "\<^sup>*"} & : & @{text "context \<rightarrow>"} \\
+ @{attribute_def intro} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def elim} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def dest} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def rule} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def iff} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def swapped} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ (@@{attribute intro} | @@{attribute elim} | @@{attribute dest}) ('!' | () | '?') @{syntax nat}?
+ ;
+ @@{attribute rule} 'del'
+ ;
+ @@{attribute iff} (((() | 'add') '?'?) | 'del')
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{command "print_claset"} prints the collection of rules
+ declared to the Classical Reasoner, i.e.\ the @{ML_type claset}
+ within the context.
+
+ \item @{attribute intro}, @{attribute elim}, and @{attribute dest}
+ declare introduction, elimination, and destruction rules,
+ respectively. By default, rules are considered as \emph{unsafe}
+ (i.e.\ not applied blindly without backtracking), while ``@{text
+ "!"}'' classifies as \emph{safe}. Rule declarations marked by
+ ``@{text "?"}'' coincide with those of Isabelle/Pure, cf.\
+ \secref{sec:pure-meth-att} (i.e.\ are only applied in single steps
+ of the @{method rule} method). The optional natural number
+ specifies an explicit weight argument, which is ignored by the
+ automated reasoning tools, but determines the search order of single
+ rule steps.
+
+ Introduction rules are those that can be applied using ordinary
+ resolution. Their swapped forms are generated internally, which
+ will be applied using elim-resolution. Elimination rules are
+ applied using elim-resolution. Rules are sorted by the number of
+ new subgoals they will yield; rules that generate the fewest
+ subgoals will be tried first. Otherwise, later declarations take
+ precedence over earlier ones.
+
+ Rules already present in the context with the same classification
+ are ignored. A warning is printed if the rule has already been
+ added with some other classification, but the rule is added anyway
+ as requested.
+
+ \item @{attribute rule}~@{text del} deletes all occurrences of a
+ rule from the classical context, regardless of its classification as
+ introduction~/ elimination~/ destruction and safe~/ unsafe.
+
+ \item @{attribute iff} declares logical equivalences to the
+ Simplifier and the Classical reasoner at the same time.
+ Non-conditional rules result in a safe introduction and elimination
+ pair; conditional ones are considered unsafe. Rules with negative
+ conclusion are automatically inverted (using @{text "\<not>"}-elimination
+ internally).
+
+ The ``@{text "?"}'' version of @{attribute iff} declares rules to
+ the Isabelle/Pure context only, and omits the Simplifier
+ declaration.
+
+ \item @{attribute swapped} turns an introduction rule into an
+ elimination, by resolving with the classical swap principle @{text
+ "\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> (\<not> R \<Longrightarrow> P) \<Longrightarrow> R"} in the second position. This is mainly for
+ illustrative purposes: the Classical Reasoner already swaps rules
+ internally as explained above.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Structured methods *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def rule} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def contradiction} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{method rule} @{syntax thmrefs}?
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method rule} as offered by the Classical Reasoner is a
+ refinement over the Pure one (see \secref{sec:pure-meth-att}). Both
+ versions work the same, but the classical version observes the
+ classical rule context in addition to that of Isabelle/Pure.
+
+ Common object logics (HOL, ZF, etc.) declare a rich collection of
+ classical rules (even if these would qualify as intuitionistic
+ ones), but only few declarations to the rule context of
+ Isabelle/Pure (\secref{sec:pure-meth-att}).
+
+ \item @{method contradiction} solves some goal by contradiction,
+ deriving any result from both @{text "\<not> A"} and @{text A}. Chained
+ facts, which are guaranteed to participate, may appear in either
+ order.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Automated methods *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def blast} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def auto} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def force} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def fast} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def slow} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def best} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def fastforce} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def slowsimp} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def bestsimp} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def deepen} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{method blast} @{syntax nat}? (@{syntax clamod} * )
+ ;
+ @@{method auto} (@{syntax nat} @{syntax nat})? (@{syntax clasimpmod} * )
+ ;
+ @@{method force} (@{syntax clasimpmod} * )
+ ;
+ (@@{method fast} | @@{method slow} | @@{method best}) (@{syntax clamod} * )
+ ;
+ (@@{method fastforce} | @@{method slowsimp} | @@{method bestsimp})
+ (@{syntax clasimpmod} * )
+ ;
+ @@{method deepen} (@{syntax nat} ?) (@{syntax clamod} * )
+ ;
+ @{syntax_def clamod}:
+ (('intro' | 'elim' | 'dest') ('!' | () | '?') | 'del') ':' @{syntax thmrefs}
+ ;
+ @{syntax_def clasimpmod}: ('simp' (() | 'add' | 'del' | 'only') |
+ ('cong' | 'split') (() | 'add' | 'del') |
+ 'iff' (((() | 'add') '?'?) | 'del') |
+ (('intro' | 'elim' | 'dest') ('!' | () | '?') | 'del')) ':' @{syntax thmrefs}
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method blast} is a separate classical tableau prover that
+ uses the same classical rule declarations as explained before.
+
+ Proof search is coded directly in ML using special data structures.
+ A successful proof is then reconstructed using regular Isabelle
+ inferences. It is faster and more powerful than the other classical
+ reasoning tools, but has major limitations too.
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+
+ \item It does not use the classical wrapper tacticals, such as the
+ integration with the Simplifier of @{method fastforce}.
+
+ \item It does not perform higher-order unification, as needed by the
+ rule @{thm [source=false] rangeI} in HOL. There are often
+ alternatives to such rules, for example @{thm [source=false]
+ range_eqI}.
+
+ \item Function variables may only be applied to parameters of the
+ subgoal. (This restriction arises because the prover does not use
+ higher-order unification.) If other function variables are present
+ then the prover will fail with the message \texttt{Function Var's
+ argument not a bound variable}.
+
+ \item Its proof strategy is more general than @{method fast} but can
+ be slower. If @{method blast} fails or seems to be running forever,
+ try @{method fast} and the other proof tools described below.
+
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ The optional integer argument specifies a bound for the number of
+ unsafe steps used in a proof. By default, @{method blast} starts
+ with a bound of 0 and increases it successively to 20. In contrast,
+ @{text "(blast lim)"} tries to prove the goal using a search bound
+ of @{text "lim"}. Sometimes a slow proof using @{method blast} can
+ be made much faster by supplying the successful search bound to this
+ proof method instead.
+
+ \item @{method auto} combines classical reasoning with
+ simplification. It is intended for situations where there are a lot
+ of mostly trivial subgoals; it proves all the easy ones, leaving the
+ ones it cannot prove. Occasionally, attempting to prove the hard
+ ones may take a long time.
+
+ The optional depth arguments in @{text "(auto m n)"} refer to its
+ builtin classical reasoning procedures: @{text m} (default 4) is for
+ @{method blast}, which is tried first, and @{text n} (default 2) is
+ for a slower but more general alternative that also takes wrappers
+ into account.
+
+ \item @{method force} is intended to prove the first subgoal
+ completely, using many fancy proof tools and performing a rather
+ exhaustive search. As a result, proof attempts may take rather long
+ or diverge easily.
+
+ \item @{method fast}, @{method best}, @{method slow} attempt to
+ prove the first subgoal using sequent-style reasoning as explained
+ before. Unlike @{method blast}, they construct proofs directly in
+ Isabelle.
+
+ There is a difference in search strategy and back-tracking: @{method
+ fast} uses depth-first search and @{method best} uses best-first
+ search (guided by a heuristic function: normally the total size of
+ the proof state).
+
+ Method @{method slow} is like @{method fast}, but conducts a broader
+ search: it may, when backtracking from a failed proof attempt, undo
+ even the step of proving a subgoal by assumption.
+
+ \item @{method fastforce}, @{method slowsimp}, @{method bestsimp}
+ are like @{method fast}, @{method slow}, @{method best},
+ respectively, but use the Simplifier as additional wrapper. The name
+ @{method fastforce}, reflects the behaviour of this popular method
+ better without requiring an understanding of its implementation.
+
+ \item @{method deepen} works by exhaustive search up to a certain
+ depth. The start depth is 4 (unless specified explicitly), and the
+ depth is increased iteratively up to 10. Unsafe rules are modified
+ to preserve the formula they act on, so that it be used repeatedly.
+ This method can prove more goals than @{method fast}, but is much
+ slower, for example if the assumptions have many universal
+ quantifiers.
+
+ \end{description}
+
+ Any of the above methods support additional modifiers of the context
+ of classical (and simplifier) rules, but the ones related to the
+ Simplifier are explicitly prefixed by @{text simp} here. The
+ semantics of these ad-hoc rule declarations is analogous to the
+ attributes given before. Facts provided by forward chaining are
+ inserted into the goal before commencing proof search.
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Semi-automated methods *}
+
+text {* These proof methods may help in situations when the
+ fully-automated tools fail. The result is a simpler subgoal that
+ can be tackled by other means, such as by manual instantiation of
+ quantifiers.
+
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{method_def safe} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def clarify} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{method_def clarsimp} & : & @{text method} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ @{rail "
+ (@@{method safe} | @@{method clarify}) (@{syntax clamod} * )
+ ;
+ @@{method clarsimp} (@{syntax clasimpmod} * )
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{method safe} repeatedly performs safe steps on all subgoals.
+ It is deterministic, with at most one outcome.
+
+ \item @{method clarify} performs a series of safe steps without
+ splitting subgoals; see also @{ML clarify_step_tac}.
+
+ \item @{method clarsimp} acts like @{method clarify}, but also does
+ simplification. Note that if the Simplifier context includes a
+ splitter for the premises, the subgoal may still be split.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+subsection {* Single-step tactics *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{index_ML safe_step_tac: "Proof.context -> int -> tactic"} \\
+ @{index_ML inst_step_tac: "Proof.context -> int -> tactic"} \\
+ @{index_ML step_tac: "Proof.context -> int -> tactic"} \\
+ @{index_ML slow_step_tac: "Proof.context -> int -> tactic"} \\
+ @{index_ML clarify_step_tac: "Proof.context -> int -> tactic"} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ These are the primitive tactics behind the (semi)automated proof
+ methods of the Classical Reasoner. By calling them yourself, you
+ can execute these procedures one step at a time.
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{ML safe_step_tac}~@{text "ctxt i"} performs a safe step on
+ subgoal @{text i}. The safe wrapper tacticals are applied to a
+ tactic that may include proof by assumption or Modus Ponens (taking
+ care not to instantiate unknowns), or substitution.
+
+ \item @{ML inst_step_tac} is like @{ML safe_step_tac}, but allows
+ unknowns to be instantiated.
+
+ \item @{ML step_tac}~@{text "ctxt i"} is the basic step of the proof
+ procedure. The unsafe wrapper tacticals are applied to a tactic
+ that tries @{ML safe_tac}, @{ML inst_step_tac}, or applies an unsafe
+ rule from the context.
+
+ \item @{ML slow_step_tac} resembles @{ML step_tac}, but allows
+ backtracking between using safe rules with instantiation (@{ML
+ inst_step_tac}) and using unsafe rules. The resulting search space
+ is larger.
+
+ \item @{ML clarify_step_tac}~@{text "ctxt i"} performs a safe step
+ on subgoal @{text i}. No splitting step is applied; for example,
+ the subgoal @{text "A \<and> B"} is left as a conjunction. Proof by
+ assumption, Modus Ponens, etc., may be performed provided they do
+ not instantiate unknowns. Assumptions of the form @{text "x = t"}
+ may be eliminated. The safe wrapper tactical is applied.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+
+section {* Object-logic setup \label{sec:object-logic} *}
+
+text {*
+ \begin{matharray}{rcl}
+ @{command_def "judgment"} & : & @{text "theory \<rightarrow> theory"} \\
+ @{method_def atomize} & : & @{text method} \\
+ @{attribute_def atomize} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def rule_format} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ @{attribute_def rulify} & : & @{text attribute} \\
+ \end{matharray}
+
+ The very starting point for any Isabelle object-logic is a ``truth
+ judgment'' that links object-level statements to the meta-logic
+ (with its minimal language of @{text prop} that covers universal
+ quantification @{text "\<And>"} and implication @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"}).
+
+ Common object-logics are sufficiently expressive to internalize rule
+ statements over @{text "\<And>"} and @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"} within their own
+ language. This is useful in certain situations where a rule needs
+ to be viewed as an atomic statement from the meta-level perspective,
+ e.g.\ @{text "\<And>x. x \<in> A \<Longrightarrow> P x"} versus @{text "\<forall>x \<in> A. P x"}.
+
+ From the following language elements, only the @{method atomize}
+ method and @{attribute rule_format} attribute are occasionally
+ required by end-users, the rest is for those who need to setup their
+ own object-logic. In the latter case existing formulations of
+ Isabelle/FOL or Isabelle/HOL may be taken as realistic examples.
+
+ Generic tools may refer to the information provided by object-logic
+ declarations internally.
+
+ @{rail "
+ @@{command judgment} @{syntax name} '::' @{syntax type} @{syntax mixfix}?
+ ;
+ @@{attribute atomize} ('(' 'full' ')')?
+ ;
+ @@{attribute rule_format} ('(' 'noasm' ')')?
+ "}
+
+ \begin{description}
+
+ \item @{command "judgment"}~@{text "c :: \<sigma> (mx)"} declares constant
+ @{text c} as the truth judgment of the current object-logic. Its
+ type @{text \<sigma>} should specify a coercion of the category of
+ object-level propositions to @{text prop} of the Pure meta-logic;
+ the mixfix annotation @{text "(mx)"} would typically just link the
+ object language (internally of syntactic category @{text logic})
+ with that of @{text prop}. Only one @{command "judgment"}
+ declaration may be given in any theory development.
+
+ \item @{method atomize} (as a method) rewrites any non-atomic
+ premises of a sub-goal, using the meta-level equations declared via
+ @{attribute atomize} (as an attribute) beforehand. As a result,
+ heavily nested goals become amenable to fundamental operations such
+ as resolution (cf.\ the @{method (Pure) rule} method). Giving the ``@{text
+ "(full)"}'' option here means to turn the whole subgoal into an
+ object-statement (if possible), including the outermost parameters
+ and assumptions as well.
+
+ A typical collection of @{attribute atomize} rules for a particular
+ object-logic would provide an internalization for each of the
+ connectives of @{text "\<And>"}, @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"}, and @{text "\<equiv>"}.
+ Meta-level conjunction should be covered as well (this is
+ particularly important for locales, see \secref{sec:locale}).
+
+ \item @{attribute rule_format} rewrites a theorem by the equalities
+ declared as @{attribute rulify} rules in the current object-logic.
+ By default, the result is fully normalized, including assumptions
+ and conclusions at any depth. The @{text "(no_asm)"} option
+ restricts the transformation to the conclusion of a rule.
+
+ In common object-logics (HOL, FOL, ZF), the effect of @{attribute
+ rule_format} is to replace (bounded) universal quantification
+ (@{text "\<forall>"}) and implication (@{text "\<longrightarrow>"}) by the corresponding
+ rule statements over @{text "\<And>"} and @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"}.
+
+ \end{description}
+*}
+
+end