ProofMode.md 8.1 KB
Newer Older
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tactic overview
===============

Applying hypotheses and lemmas
------------------------------

- `iExact "H"`  : finish the goal if the conclusion matches the hypothesis `H`
- `iAssumption` : finish the goal if the conclusion matches any hypothesis
9
10
- `iApply pm_trm` : match the conclusion of the current goal against the
   conclusion of `pm_trm` and generates goals for the premises of `pm_trm`. See
11
12
13
14
15
   proof mode terms below.

Context management
------------------

16
- `iIntros (x1 ... xn) "ipat1 ... ipatn"` : introduce universal quantifiers
17
18
19
  using Coq introduction patterns `x1 ... xn` and implications/wands using proof
  mode introduction patterns `ipat1 ... ipatn`.
- `iClear "H1 ... Hn"` : clear the hypothesis `H1 ... Hn`. The symbol `★` can
20
21
  be used to clear entire spatial context.
- `iRevert (x1 ... xn) "H1 ... Hn"` : revert the proof mode hypotheses
22
23
24
25
  `H1 ... Hn` into wands, as well as the Coq level hypotheses/variables
  `x1 ... xn` into universal quantifiers. The symbol `★` can be used to revert
  the entire spatial context.
- `iRename "H1" into "H2"` : rename the hypothesis `H1` into `H2`.
26
27
28
29
- `iSpecialize pm_trm` : instantiate universal quantifiers and eliminate
  implications/wands of a hypothesis `pm_trm`. See proof mode terms below.
- `iPoseProof pm_trm as "H"` : put `pm_trm` into the context as a new hypothesis
  `H`.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
- `iAssert P with "spat" as "ipat"` : create a new goal with conclusion `P` and
  put `P` in the context of the original goal. The specialization pattern
  `spat` specifies which hypotheses will be consumed by proving `P` and the
  introduction pattern `ipat` specifies how to eliminate `P`.

Introduction of logical connectives
-----------------------------------

- `iPureIntro` : turn a pure goal into a Coq goal. This tactic works for goals
  of the shape `■ φ`, `a ≡ b` on discrete COFEs, and `✓ a` on discrete CMRAs.

- `iLeft` : left introduction of disjunction.
- `iRight` : right introduction of disjunction.

- `iSplit` : introduction of a conjunction, or separating conjunction provided
  one of the operands is persistent.
- `iSplitL "H1 ... Hn"` : introduction of a separating conjunction. The
  hypotheses `H1 ... Hn` are used for the left conjunct, and the remaining ones
  for the right conjunct.
- `iSplitR "H0 ... Hn"` : symmetric version of the above.
- `iExist t1, .., tn` : introduction of an existential quantifier.

Elimination of logical connectives
----------------------------------

- `iExFalso` : Ex falso sequitur quod libet.
56
57
58
59
60
- `iDestruct pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "spat1 ... spatn"` : elimination of
  existential quantifiers using Coq introduction patterns `x1 ... xn` and
  elimination of object level connectives using the proof mode introduction
  patterns `ipat1 ... ipatn`.
- `iDestruct pm_trm as %cpat` : elimination of a pure hypothesis using the Coq
61
  introduction pattern `cpat`.
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

Separating logic specific tactics
---------------------------------

- `iFrame "H0 ... Hn"` : cancel the hypotheses `H0 ... Hn` in the goal. 
- `iCombine "H1" "H2" as "H"` : turns `H1 : P1` and `H2 : P2` into
  `H : P1 ★ P2`.

The later modality
------------------
- `iNext` : introduce a later by stripping laters from all hypotheses.
73
- `iLöb (x1 ... xn) as "IH"` : perform Löb induction by generalizing over the
74
75
76
77
78
  Coq level variables `x1 ... xn` and the entire spatial context.

Rewriting
---------

79
80
- `iRewrite pm_trm` : rewrite an equality in the conclusion.
- `iRewrite pm_trm in "H"` : rewrite an equality in the hypothesis `H`.
81
82
83
84
85
86

Iris
----

- `iPvsIntro` : introduction of a primitive view shift. Generates a goal if
  the masks are not syntactically equal.
87
- `iPvs pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : runs a primitive view shift `pm_trm`.
88
89
- `iInv N as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : open the invariant `N`.
- `iInv> N as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : open the invariant `N` and establish that
90
91
  it is timeless so no laters have to be added.
- `iTimeless "H"` : strip a later of a timeless hypotheses `H` in case the
92
  conclusion is a primitive view shifts or weakest precondition.
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117

Miscellaneous
-------------

- The tactic `done` is extended so that it also performs `iAssumption` and
  introduces pure connectives.
- The proof mode adds hints to the core `eauto` database so that `eauto`
  automatically introduces: conjunctions and disjunctions, universal and
  existential quantifiers, implications and wand, always and later modalities,
  primitive view shifts, and pure connectives.

Introduction patterns
=====================

Introduction patterns are used to perform introductions and eliminations of
multiple connectives on the fly. The proof mode supports the following
introduction patterns:

- `H` : create a hypothesis named H.
- `?` : create an anonymous hypothesis.
- `_` : remove the hypothesis.
- `$` : frame the hypothesis in the goal.
- `# ipat` : move the hypothesis to the persistent context.
- `%` : move the hypothesis to the pure Coq context (anonymously).
- `[ipat ipat]` : (separating) conjunction elimination.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
118
- `[ipat|ipat]` : disjunction elimination.
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
- `[]` : false elimination.

Apart from this, there are the following introduction patterns that can only
appear at the top level:

- `!` : introduce a box (provided that the spatial context is empty).
- `>` : introduce a later (which strips laters from all hypotheses).
- `{H1 ... Hn}` : clear `H1 ... Hn`.
- `{$H1 ... $Hn}` : frame `H1 ... Hn` (this pattern can be mixed with the
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
128
  previous pattern, e.g., `{$H1 H2 $H3}`).
129
130
131
132
133
- `/=` : perform `simpl`.
- `*` : introduce all universal quantifiers.
- `**` : introduce all universal quantifiers, as well as all arrows and wands.

For example, given:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
134

135
        ∀ x, x = 0 ⊢ □ (P → False ∨ □ (Q ∧ ▷ R) -★ P ★ ▷ (R ★ Q ∧ x = pred 2)).
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
136

137
You can write
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
138

139
        iIntros (x) "% ! $ [[] | #[HQ HR]] /= >".
140
141

which results in:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
142

143
144
145
        x : nat
        H : x = 0
        ______________________________________(1/1)
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
146
        "HQ" : Q
147
148
149
        "HR" : R
        --------------------------------------□
        R ★ Q ∧ x = 1
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
150
151


152
153
Specialization patterns
=======================
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
154

155
156
157
158
Since we are reasoning in a spatial logic, when eliminating a lemma or
hypotheses of type ``P_0 -★ ... -★ P_n -★ R`` one has to specify how the
hypotheses are split between the premises. The proof mode supports the following
so called specification patterns to express this splitting:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
159

160
161
162
163
164
165
- `H` : use the hypothesis `H` (it should match the premise exactly). If `H` is
  spatial, it will be consumed.
- `[H1 ... Hn]` : generate a goal with the spatial hypotheses `H1 ... Hn` and
  all persistent hypotheses. The hypotheses `H1 ... Hn` will be consumed.
- `[-H1 ... Hn]`  : negated form of the above pattern
- `=>[H1 ... Hn]` : same as the above pattern, but can only be used if the goal
166
167
  is a primitive view shift, in which case the view shift will be kept in the
  goal of the premise too.
168
169
170
171
172
173
- `[#]` : This pattern can be used when eliminating `P -★ Q` when either `P` or
  `Q` is persistent. In this case, all hypotheses are available in the goal for
  the premise as none will be consumed.
- `[%]` : This pattern can be used when eliminating `P -★ Q` when `P` is pure.
  It will generate a Coq goal for `P` and does not consume any hypotheses.
- `*` : instantiate all top-level universal quantifiers with meta variables.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
174

175
For example, given:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
176

177
        H : □ P -★ P 2 -★ x = 0 -★ Q1 ∗ Q2
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
178

179
You can write:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
180

181
        iDestruct ("H" with "[#] [H1 H2] [%]") as "[H4 H5]".
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
182

183
184
185
186
187
188
Proof mode terms
================

Many of the proof mode tactics (such as `iDestruct`, `iApply`, `iRewrite`) can
take both hypotheses and lemmas, and allow one to instantiate universal
quantifiers and implications/wands of these hypotheses/lemmas on the fly.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
189

190
The syntax for the arguments of these tactics, called _proof mode terms_, is:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
191

192
        (H $! t1 ... tn with "spat1 .. spatn")
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
193

194
195
196
197
Here, `H` can be both a hypothesis, as well as a Coq lemma whose conclusion is
of the shape `P ⊢ Q`. In the above, `t1 ... tn` are arbitrary Coq terms used
for instantiation of universal quantifiers, and `spat1 .. spatn` are
specialization patterns to eliminate implications and wands.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
198

199
Proof mode terms can be written down using the following short hands too:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
200

201
202
203
        (H with "spat1 .. spatn")
        (H $! t1 ... tn)
        H
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
204