ProofMode.md 11.2 KB
Newer Older
1
2
3
Tactic overview
===============

4
5
Many of the tactics below apply to more goals than described in this document
since the behavior of these tactics can be tuned via instances of the type
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
6
classes in the file [proofmode/classes](proofmode/classes.v). Most notable, many
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
7
of the tactics can be applied when the to be introduced or to be eliminated
8
9
connective appears under a later, an update modality, or in the conclusion of a
weakest precondition.
10

11
12
13
14
15
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
16
- `iApply pm_trm` : match the conclusion of the current goal against the
17
18
  conclusion of `pm_trm` and generates goals for the premises of `pm_trm`. See
  proof mode terms below.
19
20
21
22

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

23
- `iIntros (x1 ... xn) "ipat1 ... ipatn"` : introduce universal quantifiers
24
25
  using Coq introduction patterns `x1 ... xn` and implications/wands using proof
  mode introduction patterns `ipat1 ... ipatn`.
26
27
28
29
30
31
- `iClear (x1 ... xn) "selpat"` : clear the hypotheses given by the selection
  pattern `selpat` and the Coq level hypotheses/variables `x1 ... xn`.
- `iRevert (x1 ... xn) "selpat"` : revert the hypotheses given by the selection
  pattern `selpat` into wands, and the Coq level hypotheses/variables
  `x1 ... xn` into universal quantifiers. Persistent hypotheses are wrapped into
  the always modality.
32
- `iRename "H1" into "H2"` : rename the hypothesis `H1` into `H2`.
33
34
- `iSpecialize pm_trm` : instantiate universal quantifiers and eliminate
  implications/wands of a hypothesis `pm_trm`. See proof mode terms below.
35
36
37
38
- `iSpecialize pm_trm as #` : instantiate universal quantifiers and eliminate
  implications/wands of a hypothesis whose conclusion is persistent. In this
  case, all hypotheses can be used for proving the premises, as well as for
  the resulting goal.
39
40
- `iPoseProof pm_trm as "H"` : put `pm_trm` into the context as a new hypothesis
  `H`.
41
42
- `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
43
  `spat` specifies which hypotheses will be consumed by proving `P`. The
44
  introduction pattern `ipat` specifies how to eliminate `P`.
45
46
- `iAssert P with "spat" as %cpat` : assert `P` and eliminate it using the Coq
  introduction pattern `cpat`.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

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
61
62
  for the right conjunct. Persistent hypotheses are ignored, since these do not
  need to be split.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
- `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.
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
- `iDestruct pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : elimination of existential
  quantifiers using Coq introduction patterns `x1 ... xn` and elimination of
  object level connectives using the proof mode introduction pattern `ipat`.
  In case all branches of `ipat` start with an `#` (moving the hypothesis to the
  persistent context) or `%` (moving the hypothesis to the pure Coq context),
  one can use all hypotheses for proving the premises of `pm_trm`, as well as
  for proving the resulting goal.
77
- `iDestruct pm_trm as %cpat` : elimination of a pure hypothesis using the Coq
78
79
80
  introduction pattern `cpat`. When using this tactic, all hypotheses can be
  used for proving the premises of `pm_trm`, as well as for proving the
  resulting goal.
81
82
83
84

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

85
86
87
- `iFrame (t1 .. tn) "selpat"` : cancel the Coq terms (or Coq hypotheses)
  `t1 ... tn` and Iris hypotheses given by `selpat` in the goal. The constructs
  of the selection pattern have the following meaning:
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

  + `%` : repeatedly frame hypotheses from the Coq context.
  + `#` : repeatedly frame hypotheses from the persistent context.
  + `★` : frame as much of the spatial context as possible.

  Notice that framing spatial hypotheses makes them disappear, but framing Coq
  or persistent hypotheses does not make them disappear.
95
96
97

  This tactic finishes the goal in case everything in the conclusion has been
  framed.
98
99
100
- `iCombine "H1" "H2" as "H"` : turns `H1 : P1` and `H2 : P2` into
  `H : P1 ★ P2`.

101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Modalities
----------

- `iModIntro` : introduction of a modality that is an instance of the
  `IntoModal` type class. Instances include: later, except 0, basic update and
  fancy update.
- `iMod pm_trm as (x1 ... xn) "ipat"` : eliminate a modality `pm_trm` that is
  an instance of the `ElimModal` type class. Instances include: later, except 0,
  basic update and fancy update.

111
112
The later modality
------------------
113

114
115
116
117
- `iNext n` : introduce `n` laters by stripping that number of laters from all
  hypotheses. If the argument `n` is not given, it strips one later if the
  leftmost conjuct is of the shape `▷ P`, or `n` laters if the leftmost conjuct
  is of the shape `▷^n P`.
118
119
120
121
- `iLöb as "IH" forall (x1 ... xn)` : perform Löb induction by generating a
  hypothesis `IH : ▷ goal`. The tactic generalizes over the Coq level variables
  `x1 ... xn`, the hypotheses given by the selection pattern `selpat`, and the
  spatial context.
122

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
123
124
Induction
---------
125

126
127
- `iInduction x as cpat "IH" forall (x1 ... xn) "selpat"` : perform induction on
  the Coq term `x`. The Coq introduction pattern is used to name the introduced
128
129
  variables. The induction hypotheses are inserted into the persistent context
  and given fresh names prefixed `IH`. The tactic generalizes over the Coq level
130
131
  variables `x1 ... xn`, the hypotheses given by the selection pattern `selpat`,
  and the spatial context.
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
132

133
134
135
Rewriting
---------

136
137
- `iRewrite pm_trm` : rewrite an equality in the conclusion.
- `iRewrite pm_trm in "H"` : rewrite an equality in the hypothesis `H`.
138
139
140
141

Iris
----

142
143
- `iInv N as (x1 ... xn) "ipat" "Hclose"` : open the invariant `N`, the update
  for closing the invariant is put in a hypothesis named `Hclose`.
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151

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
152
153
  existential quantifiers, implications and wand, always, later and update
  modalities, and pure connectives.
154

155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
Selection patterns
==================

Selection patterns are used to select hypotheses in the tactics `iRevert`,
`iClear`, `iFrame`, `iLöb` and `iInduction`. The proof mode supports the
following _selection patterns_:

- `H` : select the hypothesis named `H`.
- `%` : select the entire pure/Coq context.
- `#` : select the entire persistent context.
- `★` : select the entire spatial context.

167
168
169
170
171
Introduction patterns
=====================

Introduction patterns are used to perform introductions and eliminations of
multiple connectives on the fly. The proof mode supports the following
172
_introduction patterns_:
173

174
- `H` : create a hypothesis named `H`.
175
176
177
178
- `?` : create an anonymous hypothesis.
- `_` : remove the hypothesis.
- `$` : frame the hypothesis in the goal.
- `[ipat ipat]` : (separating) conjunction elimination.
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
179
- `[ipat|ipat]` : disjunction elimination.
180
- `[]` : false elimination.
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
181
182
- `%` : move the hypothesis to the pure Coq context (anonymously).
- `# ipat` : move the hypothesis to the persistent context.
183
- `> ipat` : eliminate a modality (if the goal permits).
184
185
186
187
188
189

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

- `{H1 ... Hn}` : clear `H1 ... Hn`.
- `{$H1 ... $Hn}` : frame `H1 ... Hn` (this pattern can be mixed with the
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
190
  previous pattern, e.g., `{$H1 H2 $H3}`).
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
191
192
- `!%` : introduce a pure goal (and leave the proof mode).
- `!#` : introduce an always modality (given that the spatial context is empty).
193
- `!>` : introduce a modality.
194
195
196
197
198
- `/=` : 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
199

200
        ∀ x, x = 0 ⊢ □ (P → False ∨ □ (Q ∧ ▷ R) -★ P ★ ▷ (R ★ Q ∧ x = pred 2)).
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
201

202
You can write
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
203

Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
204
        iIntros (x) "% !# $ [[] | #[HQ HR]] /= !>".
205
206

which results in:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
207

208
209
210
        x : nat
        H : x = 0
        ______________________________________(1/1)
Robbert Krebbers's avatar
Robbert Krebbers committed
211
        "HQ" : Q
212
213
214
        "HR" : R
        --------------------------------------□
        R ★ Q ∧ x = 1
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
215
216


217
218
Specialization patterns
=======================
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
219

220
Since we are reasoning in a spatial logic, when eliminating a lemma or
221
hypothesis of type ``P_0 -★ ... -★ P_n -★ R``, one has to specify how the
222
hypotheses are split between the premises. The proof mode supports the following
223
_specification patterns_ to express splitting of hypotheses:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
224

225
226
- `H` : use the hypothesis `H` (it should match the premise exactly). If `H` is
  spatial, it will be consumed.
227
228
229
230
- `[H1 ... Hn]` : generate a goal with the (spatial) hypotheses `H1 ... Hn` and
  all persistent hypotheses. The spatial hypotheses among `H1 ... Hn` will be
  consumed. Hypotheses may be prefixed with a `$`, which results in them being
  framed in the generated goal.
231
- `[-H1 ... Hn]`  : negated form of the above pattern.
232
233
234
- `>[H1 ... Hn]` : same as the above pattern, but can only be used if the goal
  is a modality, in which case the modality will be kept in the generated goal
  for the premise will be wrapped into the modality.
235
236
237
- `[#]` : This pattern can be used when eliminating `P -★ Q` with `P`
  persistent. Using this pattern, all hypotheses are available in the goal for
  `P`, as well the remaining goal.
238
239
240
- `[%]` : 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
241

242
For example, given:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
243

244
        H : □ P -★ P 2 -★ x = 0 -★ Q1 ∗ Q2
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
245

246
You can write:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
247

248
        iDestruct ("H" with "[#] [H1 H2] [%]") as "[H4 H5]".
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
249

250
251
252
253
254
255
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
256

257
The syntax for the arguments of these tactics, called _proof mode terms_, is:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
258

259
        (H $! t1 ... tn with "spat1 .. spatn")
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
260

261
262
263
264
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
265

266
Proof mode terms can be written down using the following short hands too:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
267

268
269
270
        (H with "spat1 .. spatn")
        (H $! t1 ... tn)
        H
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
271