Skip to content
GitLab
Menu
Projects
Groups
Snippets
/
Help
Help
Support
Community forum
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Submit feedback
Contribute to GitLab
Sign in / Register
Toggle navigation
Menu
Open sidebar
Rodolphe Lepigre
Iris
Commits
1c14ae6f
Commit
1c14ae6f
authored
Mar 07, 2017
by
Robbert Krebbers
Browse files
Update star symbol in ProofMode docs.
parent
f870cdaf
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Sidebyside
ProofMode.md
View file @
1c14ae6f
...
...
@@ 99,7 +99,7 @@ Separating logic specific tactics
+
`%`
: repeatedly frame hypotheses from the Coq context.
+
`#`
: repeatedly frame hypotheses from the persistent context.
+
`
★
`
: frame as much of the spatial context as possible.
+
`
∗
`
: 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.
...
...
@@ 107,7 +107,7 @@ Separating logic specific tactics
This tactic finishes the goal in case everything in the conclusion has been
framed.

`iCombine "H1" "H2" as "H"`
: turns
`H1 : P1`
and
`H2 : P2`
into
`H : P1
★
P2`
.
`H : P1
∗
P2`
.
Modalities

...
...
@@ 173,7 +173,7 @@ 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.

`
∗
`
: select the entire spatial context.
Introduction patterns
=====================
...
...
@@ 208,7 +208,7 @@ appear at the top level:
For example, given:
∀ x, x = 0 ⊢ □ (P → False ∨ □ (Q ∧ ▷ R) 
★
P
★
▷ (R
★
Q ∧ x = pred 2)).
∀ x, x = 0 ⊢ □ (P → False ∨ □ (Q ∧ ▷ R) 
∗
P
∗
▷ (R
∗
Q ∧ x = pred 2)).
You can write
...
...
@@ 222,14 +222,14 @@ which results in:
"HQ" : Q
"HR" : R
□
R
★
Q ∧ x = 1
R
∗
Q ∧ x = 1
Specialization patterns
=======================
Since we are reasoning in a spatial logic, when eliminating a lemma or
hypothesis of type
``P_0 
★
... 
★
P_n 
★
R``
, one has to specify how the
hypothesis 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
_specification patterns_
to express splitting of hypotheses:
...
...
@@ 239,22 +239,22 @@ _specification patterns_ to express splitting of hypotheses:
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.

`[H1 ... Hn]`
: negated form of the above pattern.

`[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 modality, in which case the modality will be kept in the generated goal
for the premise will be wrapped into the modality.

`>[H1 ... Hn]`
: negated form of the above pattern.

`>`
: shorthand for
`>[]`
(typically used for the last premise of an applied
lemma).

`[#]`
: This pattern can be used when eliminating
`P 
★
Q`
with
`P`

`[#]`
: 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.

`[%]`
: This pattern can be used when eliminating
`P 
★
Q`
when
`P`
is pure.

`[%]`
: 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.
For example, given:
H : □ P 
★
P 2 
★
x = 0 
★
Q1 ∗ Q2
H : □ P 
∗
P 2 
∗
x = 0 
∗
Q1 ∗ Q2
You can write:
...
...
Write
Preview
Supports
Markdown
0%
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Attach a file
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment