ProofMode.md 7.94 KB
Newer Older
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 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 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
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
- `iApply trm` : match the conclusion of the current goal against the
   conclusion of `tetrmrm` and generates goals for the premises of `trm`. See
   proof mode terms below.

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

- `iIntros {x1 ... xn} "ipat1 ... ipatn"` : introduce universal quantifiers
  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
   be used to clear entire spatial context.
- `iRevert {x1 ... xn} "H1 ... Hn"` : revert the proof mode hypotheses
  `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`.
- `iSpecialize trm` : instantiate universal quantifiers and eliminate
  implications/wands of a hypothesis `trm`. See proof mode terms below.
- `iPoseProof trm as "H"` : put `trm` into the context as a new hypothesis `H`.
- `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.
- `iDestruct 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`.

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.
- `iLöb {x1 ... xn} as "IH"` : perform Löb induction by generalizing over the
  Coq level variables `x1 ... xn` and the entire spatial context.

Rewriting
---------

- `iRewrite trm` : rewrite an equality in the conclusion.
- `iRewrite trm in "H"` : rewrite an equality in the hypothesis `H`.

Iris
----

- `iPvsIntro` : introduction of a primitive view shift. Generates a goal if
  the masks are not syntactically equal.
- `iPvs trm as {x1 ... xn} "ipat"` : runs a primitive view shift `trm`.
- `iInv N as {x1 ... xn} "ipat"` : open the invariant `N`.
- `iInv> N as {x1 ... xn} "ipat"` : open the invariant `N` and establish that
  it is timeless so no laters have to be added.
- `iTimeless "H"` : strip a later of a timeless hypotheses `H` in case the
   conclusion is a primitive view shifts or weakest precondition.

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.
- `|ipat|ipat]` : disjunction elimination.
- `[]` : 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 ... $Hn}` : frame `H1 ... Hn` (this pattern can be mixed with the
  previous pattern, e.g., `{$H1 H2 #H3}`).
- `/=` : 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
131

132
        ∀ x, x = 0 ⊢ □ (P → False ∨ □ (Q ∧ ▷ R) -★ P ★ ▷ (R ★ Q ∧ x = pred 2)).
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
133

134
You can write
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
135

136 137 138
        iIntros {x} "% ! $ [[] | #[HQ HR]] /= >".

which results in:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
139

140 141 142 143 144 145 146
				x : nat
				H : x = 0
				______________________________________(1/1)
				​​"HQ" : Q
				​"HR" : R
				--------------------------------------□
				R ★ Q ∧ x = 1
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
147 148


149 150
Specialization patterns
=======================
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
151

152 153 154 155
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
156

157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
- `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
   is a primitive view shift, in which case the view shift will be kept in the
   goal of the premise too.
- `[#]` : 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
171

172
For example, given:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
173

174
        H : □ P -★ P 2 -★ x = 0 -★ Q1 ∗ Q2
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
175

176
You can write:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
177

178
        iDestruct ("H" with "[#] [H1 H2] [%]") as "[H4 H5]".
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
179

180 181 182 183 184 185
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
186

187
The syntax for the arguments, called _proof mode terms_ of these tactics is:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
188

189
        (H $! t1 ... tn with "spat1 .. spatn")
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
190

191 192 193 194
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
195

196
Proof mode terms can be written down using the following short hands too:
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
197

198 199 200
        (H with "spat1 .. spatn")
        (H $! t1 ... tn)
        H
Ralf Jung's avatar
Ralf Jung committed
201