summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/refman/RefMan-tac.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/refman/RefMan-tac.tex')
-rw-r--r--doc/refman/RefMan-tac.tex4341
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4341 deletions
diff --git a/doc/refman/RefMan-tac.tex b/doc/refman/RefMan-tac.tex
deleted file mode 100644
index 14d95ab8..00000000
--- a/doc/refman/RefMan-tac.tex
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,4341 +0,0 @@
-% TODO: unify the use of \form and \type to mean a type
-% or use \form specifically for a type of type Prop
-\chapter{Tactics
-\index{Tactics}
-\label{Tactics}}
-
-A deduction rule is a link between some (unique) formula, that we call
-the {\em conclusion} and (several) formulas that we call the {\em
-premises}. Indeed, a deduction rule can be read in two ways. The first
-one has the shape: {\it ``if I know this and this then I can deduce
-this''}. For instance, if I have a proof of $A$ and a proof of $B$
-then I have a proof of $A \land B$. This is forward reasoning from
-premises to conclusion. The other way says: {\it ``to prove this I
-have to prove this and this''}. For instance, to prove $A \land B$, I
-have to prove $A$ and I have to prove $B$. This is backward reasoning
-which proceeds from conclusion to premises. We say that the conclusion
-is {\em the goal}\index{goal} to prove and premises are {\em the
-subgoals}\index{subgoal}. The tactics implement {\em backward
-reasoning}. When applied to a goal, a tactic replaces this goal with
-the subgoals it generates. We say that a tactic reduces a goal to its
-subgoal(s).
-
-Each (sub)goal is denoted with a number. The current goal is numbered
-1. By default, a tactic is applied to the current goal, but one can
-address a particular goal in the list by writing {\sl n:\tac} which
-means {\it ``apply tactic {\tac} to goal number {\sl n}''}.
-We can show the list of subgoals by typing {\tt Show} (see
-Section~\ref{Show}).
-
-Since not every rule applies to a given statement, every tactic cannot be
-used to reduce any goal. In other words, before applying a tactic to a
-given goal, the system checks that some {\em preconditions} are
-satisfied. If it is not the case, the tactic raises an error message.
-
-Tactics are build from atomic tactics and tactic expressions (which
-extends the folklore notion of tactical) to combine those atomic
-tactics. This chapter is devoted to atomic tactics. The tactic
-language will be described in Chapter~\ref{TacticLanguage}.
-
-There are, at least, three levels of atomic tactics. The simplest one
-implements basic rules of the logical framework. The second level is
-the one of {\em derived rules} which are built by combination of other
-tactics. The third one implements heuristics or decision procedures to
-build a complete proof of a goal.
-
-\section{Invocation of tactics
-\label{tactic-syntax}
-\index{tactic@{\tac}}}
-
-A tactic is applied as an ordinary command. If the tactic does not
-address the first subgoal, the command may be preceded by the wished
-subgoal number as shown below:
-
-\begin{tabular}{lcl}
-{\commandtac} & ::= & {\num} {\tt :} {\tac} {\tt .}\\
- & $|$ & {\tac} {\tt .}
-\end{tabular}
-
-\section{Explicit proof as a term}
-
-\subsection{\tt exact \term
-\tacindex{exact}
-\label{exact}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It gives directly the exact proof
-term of the goal. Let {\T} be our goal, let {\tt p} be a term of type
-{\tt U} then {\tt exact p} succeeds iff {\tt T} and {\tt U} are
-convertible (see Section~\ref{conv-rules}).
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Not an exact proof}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
- \item \texttt{eexact \term}\tacindex{eexact}
-
- This tactic behaves like \texttt{exact} but is able to handle terms with meta-variables.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-\subsection{\tt refine \term
-\tacindex{refine}
-\label{refine}
-\index{?@{\texttt{?}}}}
-
-This tactic allows to give an exact proof but still with some
-holes. The holes are noted ``\texttt{\_}''.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{invalid argument}:
- the tactic \texttt{refine} doesn't know what to do
- with the term you gave.
-\item \texttt{Refine passed ill-formed term}: the term you gave is not
- a valid proof (not easy to debug in general).
- This message may also occur in higher-level tactics, which call
- \texttt{refine} internally.
-\item \errindex{Cannot infer a term for this placeholder}
- there is a hole in the term you gave
- which type cannot be inferred. Put a cast around it.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-An example of use is given in Section~\ref{refine-example}.
-
-\section{Basics
-\index{Typing rules}}
-
-Tactics presented in this section implement the basic typing rules of
-{\CIC} given in Chapter~\ref{Cic}.
-
-\subsection{{\tt assumption}
-\tacindex{assumption}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It implements the
-``Var''\index{Typing rules!Var} rule given in
-Section~\ref{Typed-terms}. It looks in the local context for an
-hypothesis which type is equal to the goal. If it is the case, the
-subgoal is proved. Otherwise, it fails.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{No such assumption}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\tacindex{eassumption}
- \item \texttt{eassumption}
-
- This tactic behaves like \texttt{assumption} but is able to handle
- goals with meta-variables.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-\subsection{\tt clear {\ident}
-\tacindex{clear}
-\label{clear}}
-
-This tactic erases the hypothesis named {\ident} in the local context
-of the current goal. Then {\ident} is no more displayed and no more
-usable in the proof development.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt clear {\ident$_1$} {\ldots} {\ident$_n$}}
-
- This is equivalent to {\tt clear {\ident$_1$}. {\ldots} clear
- {\ident$_n$}.}
-
-\item {\tt clearbody {\ident}}\tacindex{clearbody}
-
- This tactic expects {\ident} to be a local definition then clears
- its body. Otherwise said, this tactic turns a definition into an
- assumption.
-
-\item \texttt{clear - {\ident$_1$} {\ldots} {\ident$_n$}}
-
- This tactic clears all hypotheses except the ones depending in
- the hypotheses named {\ident$_1$} {\ldots} {\ident$_n$} and in the
- goal.
-
-\item \texttt{clear}
-
- This tactic clears all hypotheses except the ones depending in
- goal.
-
-\item {\tt clear dependent \ident \tacindex{clear dependent}}
-
- This clears the hypothesis \ident\ and all hypotheses
- which depend on it.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{{\ident} not found}
-\item \errindexbis{{\ident} is used in the conclusion}{is used in the
- conclusion}
-\item \errindexbis{{\ident} is used in the hypothesis {\ident'}}{is
- used in the hypothesis}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{\tt move {\ident$_1$} after {\ident$_2$}
-\tacindex{move}
-\label{move}}
-
-This moves the hypothesis named {\ident$_1$} in the local context
-after the hypothesis named {\ident$_2$}.
-
-If {\ident$_1$} comes before {\ident$_2$} in the order of dependences,
-then all hypotheses between {\ident$_1$} and {\ident$_2$} which
-(possibly indirectly) depend on {\ident$_1$} are moved also.
-
-If {\ident$_1$} comes after {\ident$_2$} in the order of dependences,
-then all hypotheses between {\ident$_1$} and {\ident$_2$} which
-(possibly indirectly) occur in {\ident$_1$} are moved also.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt move {\ident$_1$} before {\ident$_2$}}
-
-This moves {\ident$_1$} towards and just before the hypothesis named {\ident$_2$}.
-
-\item {\tt move {\ident} at top}
-
-This moves {\ident} at the top of the local context (at the beginning of the context).
-
-\item {\tt move {\ident} at bottom}
-
-This moves {\ident} at the bottom of the local context (at the end of the context).
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-
-\item \errindex{{\ident$_i$} not found}
-
-\item \errindex{Cannot move {\ident$_1$} after {\ident$_2$}:
- it occurs in {\ident$_2$}}
-
-\item \errindex{Cannot move {\ident$_1$} after {\ident$_2$}:
- it depends on {\ident$_2$}}
-
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{\tt rename {\ident$_1$} into {\ident$_2$}
-\tacindex{rename}}
-
-This renames hypothesis {\ident$_1$} into {\ident$_2$} in the current
-context\footnote{but it does not rename the hypothesis in the
- proof-term...}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt rename {\ident$_1$} into {\ident$_2$}, \ldots,
- {\ident$_{2k-1}$} into {\ident$_{2k}$}}
-
- Is equivalent to the sequence of the corresponding atomic {\tt rename}.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-
-\item \errindex{{\ident$_1$} not found}
-
-\item \errindexbis{{\ident$_2$} is already used}{is already used}
-
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{\tt intro
-\tacindex{intro}
-\label{intro}}
-
-This tactic applies to a goal which is either a product or starts with
-a let binder. If the goal is a product, the tactic implements the
-``Lam''\index{Typing rules!Lam} rule given in
-Section~\ref{Typed-terms}\footnote{Actually, only the second subgoal will be
-generated since the other one can be automatically checked.}. If the
-goal starts with a let binder then the tactic implements a mix of the
-``Let''\index{Typing rules!Let} and ``Conv''\index{Typing rules!Conv}.
-
-If the current goal is a dependent product {\tt forall $x$:$T$, $U$} (resp {\tt
-let $x$:=$t$ in $U$}) then {\tt intro} puts {\tt $x$:$T$} (resp {\tt $x$:=$t$})
- in the local context.
-% Obsolete (quantified names already avoid hypotheses names):
-% Otherwise, it puts
-% {\tt x}{\it n}{\tt :T} where {\it n} is such that {\tt x}{\it n} is a
-%fresh name.
-The new subgoal is $U$.
-% If the {\tt x} has been renamed {\tt x}{\it n} then it is replaced
-% by {\tt x}{\it n} in {\tt U}.
-
-If the goal is a non dependent product {\tt $T$ -> $U$}, then it puts
-in the local context either {\tt H}{\it n}{\tt :$T$} (if $T$ is of
-type {\tt Set} or {\tt Prop}) or {\tt X}{\it n}{\tt :$T$} (if the type
-of $T$ is {\tt Type}). The optional index {\it n} is such that {\tt
-H}{\it n} or {\tt X}{\it n} is a fresh identifier.
-In both cases the new subgoal is $U$.
-
-If the goal is neither a product nor starting with a let definition,
-the tactic {\tt intro} applies the tactic {\tt red} until the tactic
-{\tt intro} can be applied or the goal is not reducible.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{No product even after head-reduction}
-\item \errindexbis{{\ident} is already used}{is already used}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt intros}\tacindex{intros}
-
- Repeats {\tt intro} until it meets the head-constant. It never reduces
- head-constants and it never fails.
-
-\item {\tt intro {\ident}}
-
- Applies {\tt intro} but forces {\ident} to be the name of the
- introduced hypothesis.
-
- \ErrMsg \errindex{name {\ident} is already used}
-
- \Rem If a name used by {\tt intro} hides the base name of a global
- constant then the latter can still be referred to by a qualified name
- (see \ref{LongNames}).
-
-\item {\tt intros \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$}
-
- Is equivalent to the composed tactic {\tt intro \ident$_1$; \dots\ ;
- intro \ident$_n$}.
-
- More generally, the \texttt{intros} tactic takes a pattern as
- argument in order to introduce names for components of an inductive
- definition or to clear introduced hypotheses; This is explained
- in~\ref{intros-pattern}.
-
-\item {\tt intros until {\ident}} \tacindex{intros until}
-
- Repeats {\tt intro} until it meets a premise of the goal having form
- {\tt (} {\ident}~{\tt :}~{\term} {\tt )} and discharges the variable
- named {\ident} of the current goal.
-
- \ErrMsg \errindex{No such hypothesis in current goal}
-
-\item {\tt intros until {\num}} \tacindex{intros until}
-
- Repeats {\tt intro} until the {\num}-th non-dependent product. For
- instance, on the subgoal %
- \verb+forall x y:nat, x=y -> y=x+ the tactic \texttt{intros until 1}
- is equivalent to \texttt{intros x y H}, as \verb+x=y -> y=x+ is the
- first non-dependent product. And on the subgoal %
- \verb+forall x y z:nat, x=y -> y=x+ the tactic \texttt{intros until 1}
- is equivalent to \texttt{intros x y z} as the product on \texttt{z}
- can be rewritten as a non-dependent product: %
- \verb+forall x y:nat, nat -> x=y -> y=x+
-
-
- \ErrMsg \errindex{No such hypothesis in current goal}
-
- Happens when {\num} is 0 or is greater than the number of non-dependent
- products of the goal.
-
-\item {\tt intro after \ident} \tacindex{intro after}\\
- {\tt intro before \ident} \tacindex{intro before}\\
- {\tt intro at top} \tacindex{intro at top}\\
- {\tt intro at bottom} \tacindex{intro at bottom}
-
- Applies {\tt intro} and moves the freshly introduced hypothesis
- respectively after the hypothesis \ident{}, before the hypothesis
- \ident{}, at the top of the local context, or at the bottom of the
- local context. All hypotheses on which the new hypothesis depends
- are moved too so as to respect the order of dependencies between
- hypotheses. Note that {\tt intro at bottom} is a synonym for {\tt
- intro} with no argument.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{No product even after head-reduction}
-\item \errindex{No such hypothesis} : {\ident}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\item {\tt intro \ident$_1$ after \ident$_2$}\\
- {\tt intro \ident$_1$ before \ident$_2$}\\
- {\tt intro \ident$_1$ at top}\\
- {\tt intro \ident$_1$ at bottom}
-
- Behaves as previously but naming the introduced hypothesis
- \ident$_1$. It is equivalent to {\tt intro \ident$_1$} followed by
- the appropriate call to {\tt move}~(see Section~\ref{move}).
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{No product even after head-reduction}
-\item \errindex{No such hypothesis} : {\ident}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt apply \term
-\tacindex{apply}
-\label{apply}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The argument {\term} is a term
-well-formed in the local context. The tactic {\tt apply} tries to
-match the current goal against the conclusion of the type of {\term}.
-If it succeeds, then the tactic returns as many subgoals as the number
-of non dependent premises of the type of {\term}. If the conclusion of
-the type of {\term} does not match the goal {\em and} the conclusion
-is an inductive type isomorphic to a tuple type, then each component
-of the tuple is recursively matched to the goal in the left-to-right
-order.
-
-The tactic {\tt apply} relies on first-order unification with
-dependent types unless the conclusion of the type of {\term} is of the
-form {\tt ($P$~ $t_1$~\ldots ~$t_n$)} with $P$ to be instantiated. In
-the latter case, the behavior depends on the form of the goal. If the
-goal is of the form {\tt (fun $x$ => $Q$)~$u_1$~\ldots~$u_n$} and the
-$t_i$ and $u_i$ unifies, then $P$ is taken to be (fun $x$ => $Q$).
-Otherwise, {\tt apply} tries to define $P$ by abstracting over
-$t_1$~\ldots ~$t_n$ in the goal. See {\tt pattern} in
-Section~\ref{pattern} to transform the goal so that it gets the form
-{\tt (fun $x$ => $Q$)~$u_1$~\ldots~$u_n$}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Impossible to unify \dots\ with \dots}
-
- The {\tt apply}
- tactic failed to match the conclusion of {\term} and the current goal.
- You can help the {\tt apply} tactic by transforming your
- goal with the {\tt change} or {\tt pattern} tactics (see
- sections~\ref{pattern},~\ref{change}).
-
-\item \errindex{Unable to find an instance for the variables
-{\ident} \ldots {\ident}}
-
- This occurs when some instantiations of the premises of {\term} are not
- deducible from the unification. This is the case, for instance, when
- you want to apply a transitivity property. In this case, you have to
- use one of the variants below:
-
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item{\tt apply {\term} with {\term$_1$} \dots\ {\term$_n$}}
- \tacindex{apply \dots\ with}
-
- Provides {\tt apply} with explicit instantiations for all dependent
- premises of the type of {\term} which do not occur in the conclusion
- and consequently cannot be found by unification. Notice that
- {\term$_1$} \dots\ {\term$_n$} must be given according to the order
- of these dependent premises of the type of {\term}.
-
- \ErrMsg \errindex{Not the right number of missing arguments}
-
-\item{\tt apply {\term} with ({\vref$_1$} := {\term$_1$}) \dots\ ({\vref$_n$}
- := {\term$_n$})}
-
- This also provides {\tt apply} with values for instantiating
- premises. Here, variables are referred by names and non-dependent
- products by increasing numbers (see syntax in Section~\ref{Binding-list}).
-
-\item {\tt apply} {\term$_1$} {\tt ,} \ldots {\tt ,} {\term$_n$}
-
- This is a shortcut for {\tt apply} {\term$_1$} {\tt ; [ ..~|}
- \ldots~{\tt ; [ ..~| {\tt apply} {\term$_n$} ]} \ldots~{\tt ]}, i.e. for the
- successive applications of {\term$_{i+1}$} on the last subgoal
- generated by {\tt apply} {\term$_i$}, starting from the application
- of {\term$_1$}.
-
-\item {\tt eapply \term}\tacindex{eapply}\label{eapply}
-
- The tactic {\tt eapply} behaves as {\tt apply} but does not fail
- when no instantiation are deducible for some variables in the
- premises. Rather, it turns these variables into so-called
- existential variables which are variables still to instantiate. An
- existential variable is identified by a name of the form {\tt ?$n$}
- where $n$ is a number. The instantiation is intended to be found
- later in the proof.
-
- An example of use of {\tt eapply} is given in
- Section~\ref{eapply-example}.
-
-\item {\tt simple apply {\term}} \tacindex{simple apply}
-
- This behaves like {\tt apply} but it reasons modulo conversion only
- on subterms that contain no variables to instantiate. For instance,
- if {\tt id := fun x:nat => x} and {\tt H : forall y, id y = y} then
- {\tt simple apply H} on goal {\tt O = O} does not succeed because it
- would require the conversion of {\tt f ?y} and {\tt O} where {\tt
- ?y} is a variable to instantiate. Tactic {\tt simple apply} does not
- either traverse tuples as {\tt apply} does.
-
- Because it reasons modulo a limited amount of conversion, {\tt
- simple apply} fails quicker than {\tt apply} and it is then
- well-suited for uses in used-defined tactics that backtrack often.
-
-\item \zeroone{{\tt simple}} {\tt apply} {\term$_1$} \zeroone{{\tt with}
- {\bindinglist$_1$}} {\tt ,} \ldots {\tt ,} {\term$_n$} \zeroone{{\tt with}
- {\bindinglist$_n$}}\\
- \zeroone{{\tt simple}} {\tt eapply} {\term$_1$} \zeroone{{\tt with}
- {\bindinglist$_1$}} {\tt ,} \ldots {\tt ,} {\term$_n$} \zeroone{{\tt with}
- {\bindinglist$_n$}}
-
- This summarizes the different syntaxes for {\tt apply} and {\tt eapply}.
-
-\item {\tt lapply {\term}} \tacindex{lapply}
-
- This tactic applies to any goal, say {\tt G}. The argument {\term}
- has to be well-formed in the current context, its type being
- reducible to a non-dependent product {\tt A -> B} with {\tt B}
- possibly containing products. Then it generates two subgoals {\tt
- B->G} and {\tt A}. Applying {\tt lapply H} (where {\tt H} has type
- {\tt A->B} and {\tt B} does not start with a product) does the same
- as giving the sequence {\tt cut B. 2:apply H.} where {\tt cut} is
- described below.
-
- \Warning When {\term} contains more than one non
- dependent product the tactic {\tt lapply} only takes into account the
- first product.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{{\tt set ( {\ident} {\tt :=} {\term} \tt )}
-\label{tactic:set}
-\tacindex{set}
-\tacindex{pose}
-\tacindex{remember}}
-
-This replaces {\term} by {\ident} in the conclusion or in the
-hypotheses of the current goal and adds the new definition {\ident
-{\tt :=} \term} to the local context. The default is to make this
-replacement only in the conclusion.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt set (} {\ident} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt ) in {\occgoalset}}
-
-This notation allows to specify which occurrences of {\term} have to
-be substituted in the context. The {\tt in {\occgoalset}} clause is an
-occurrence clause whose syntax and behavior is described in
-Section~\ref{Occurrences clauses}.
-
-\item {\tt set (} {\ident} \nelist{\binder}{} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt )}
-
- This is equivalent to {\tt set (} {\ident} {\tt :=} {\tt fun}
- \nelist{\binder}{} {\tt =>} {\term} {\tt )}.
-
-\item {\tt set } {\term}
-
- This behaves as {\tt set (} {\ident} := {\term} {\tt )} but {\ident}
- is generated by {\Coq}. This variant also supports an occurrence clause.
-
-\item {\tt set (} {\ident$_0$} \nelist{\binder}{} {\tt :=} {\term}
- {\tt ) in {\occgoalset}}\\
- {\tt set {\term} in {\occgoalset}}
-
- These are the general forms which combine the previous possibilities.
-
-\item {\tt remember {\term} {\tt as} {\ident}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt set (} {\ident} := {\term} {\tt ) in *} and using a
- logical (Leibniz's) equality instead of a local definition.
-
-\item {\tt remember {\term} {\tt as} {\ident} in {\occgoalset}}
-
- This is a more general form of {\tt remember} that remembers the
- occurrences of {\term} specified by an occurrences set.
-
-\item {\tt pose ( {\ident} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt )}}
-
- This adds the local definition {\ident} := {\term} to the current
- context without performing any replacement in the goal or in the
- hypotheses. It is equivalent to {\tt set ( {\ident} {\tt :=}
- {\term} {\tt ) in |-}}.
-
-\item {\tt pose (} {\ident} \nelist{\binder}{} {\tt :=} {\term} {\tt )}
-
- This is equivalent to {\tt pose (} {\ident} {\tt :=} {\tt fun}
- \nelist{\binder}{} {\tt =>} {\term} {\tt )}.
-
-\item{\tt pose {\term}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt pose (} {\ident} := {\term} {\tt )} but
- {\ident} is generated by {\Coq}.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{{\tt assert ( {\ident} : {\form} \tt )}
-\tacindex{assert}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. {\tt assert (H : U)} adds a new
-hypothesis of name \texttt{H} asserting \texttt{U} to the current goal
-and opens a new subgoal \texttt{U}\footnote{This corresponds to the
- cut rule of sequent calculus.}. The subgoal {\texttt U} comes first
-in the list of subgoals remaining to prove.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Not a proposition or a type}
-
- Arises when the argument {\form} is neither of type {\tt Prop}, {\tt
- Set} nor {\tt Type}.
-
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item{\tt assert {\form}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt assert (} {\ident} : {\form} {\tt )} but
- {\ident} is generated by {\Coq}.
-
-\item{\tt assert (} {\ident} := {\term} {\tt )}
-
- This behaves as {\tt assert ({\ident} : {\type});[exact
- {\term}|idtac]} where {\type} is the type of {\term}.
-
-\item {\tt cut {\form}}\tacindex{cut}
-
- This tactic applies to any goal. It implements the non dependent
- case of the ``App''\index{Typing rules!App} rule given in
- Section~\ref{Typed-terms}. (This is Modus Ponens inference rule.)
- {\tt cut U} transforms the current goal \texttt{T} into the two
- following subgoals: {\tt U -> T} and \texttt{U}. The subgoal {\tt U
- -> T} comes first in the list of remaining subgoal to prove.
-
-\item \texttt{assert {\form} by {\tac}}\tacindex{assert by}
-
- This tactic behaves like \texttt{assert} but applies {\tac}
- to solve the subgoals generated by \texttt{assert}.
-
-\item \texttt{assert {\form} as {\intropattern}\tacindex{assert as}}
-
- If {\intropattern} is a naming introduction pattern (see
- Section~\ref{intros-pattern}), the hypothesis is named after this
- introduction pattern (in particular, if {\intropattern} is {\ident},
- the tactic behaves like \texttt{assert ({\ident} : {\form})}).
-
- If {\intropattern} is a disjunctive/conjunctive introduction
- pattern, the tactic behaves like \texttt{assert {\form}} then destructing the
- resulting hypothesis using the given introduction pattern.
-
-\item \texttt{assert {\form} as {\intropattern} by {\tac}}
-
- This combines the two previous variants of {\tt assert}.
-
-\item \texttt{pose proof {\term} as {\intropattern}\tacindex{pose proof}}
-
- This tactic behaves like \texttt{assert T as {\intropattern} by
- exact {\term}} where \texttt{T} is the type of {\term}.
-
- In particular, \texttt{pose proof {\term} as {\ident}} behaves as
- \texttt{assert ({\ident}:T) by exact {\term}} (where \texttt{T} is
- the type of {\term}) and \texttt{pose proof {\term} as
- {\disjconjintropattern}\tacindex{pose proof}} behaves
- like \texttt{destruct {\term} as {\disjconjintropattern}}.
-
-\item {\tt specialize ({\ident} \term$_1$ {\ldots} \term$_n$)\tacindex{specialize}} \\
- {\tt specialize {\ident} with \bindinglist}
-
- The tactic {\tt specialize} works on local hypothesis \ident.
- The premises of this hypothesis (either universal
- quantifications or non-dependent implications) are instantiated
- by concrete terms coming either from arguments \term$_1$
- $\ldots$ \term$_n$ or from a bindings list (see
- Section~\ref{Binding-list} for more about bindings lists). In the
- second form, all instantiation elements must be given, whereas
- in the first form the application to \term$_1$ {\ldots}
- \term$_n$ can be partial. The first form is equivalent to
- {\tt assert (\ident':=\ident \term$_1$ {\ldots} \term$_n$);
- clear \ident; rename \ident' into \ident}.
-
- The name {\ident} can also refer to a global lemma or
- hypothesis. In this case, for compatibility reasons, the
- behavior of {\tt specialize} is close to that of {\tt
- generalize}: the instantiated statement becomes an additional
- premise of the goal.
-
-%% Moreover, the old syntax allows the use of a number after {\tt specialize}
-%% for controlling the number of premises to instantiate. Giving this
-%% number should not be mandatory anymore (automatic detection of how
-%% many premises can be eaten without leaving meta-variables). Hence
-%% no documentation for this integer optional argument of specialize
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{{\tt apply {\term} in {\ident}}
-\tacindex{apply \ldots\ in}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The argument {\term} is a term
-well-formed in the local context and the argument {\ident} is an
-hypothesis of the context. The tactic {\tt apply {\term} in {\ident}}
-tries to match the conclusion of the type of {\ident} against a non
-dependent premise of the type of {\term}, trying them from right to
-left. If it succeeds, the statement of hypothesis {\ident} is
-replaced by the conclusion of the type of {\term}. The tactic also
-returns as many subgoals as the number of other non dependent premises
-in the type of {\term} and of the non dependent premises of the type
-of {\ident}. If the conclusion of the type of {\term} does not match
-the goal {\em and} the conclusion is an inductive type isomorphic to a
-tuple type, then the tuple is (recursively) decomposed and the first
-component of the tuple of which a non dependent premise matches the
-conclusion of the type of {\ident}. Tuples are decomposed in a
-width-first left-to-right order (for instance if the type of {\tt H1}
-is a \verb=A <-> B= statement, and the type of {\tt H2} is \verb=A=
-then {\tt apply H1 in H2} transforms the type of {\tt H2} into {\tt
- B}). The tactic {\tt apply} relies on first-order pattern-matching
-with dependent types.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Statement without assumptions}
-
-This happens if the type of {\term} has no non dependent premise.
-
-\item \errindex{Unable to apply}
-
-This happens if the conclusion of {\ident} does not match any of the
-non dependent premises of the type of {\term}.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt apply \nelist{\term}{,} in {\ident}}
-
-This applies each of {\term} in sequence in {\ident}.
-
-\item {\tt apply \nelist{{\term} with {\bindinglist}}{,} in {\ident}}
-
-This does the same but uses the bindings in each {\bindinglist} to
-instantiate the parameters of the corresponding type of {\term}
-(see syntax of bindings in Section~\ref{Binding-list}).
-
-\item {\tt eapply \nelist{{\term} with {\bindinglist}}{,} in {\ident}}
-\tacindex{eapply {\ldots} in}
-
-This works as {\tt apply \nelist{{\term} with {\bindinglist}}{,} in
-{\ident}} but turns unresolved bindings into existential variables, if
-any, instead of failing.
-
-\item {\tt apply \nelist{{\term}{,} with {\bindinglist}}{,} in {\ident} as {\disjconjintropattern}}
-
-This works as {\tt apply \nelist{{\term}{,} with {\bindinglist}}{,} in
-{\ident}} then destructs the hypothesis {\ident} along
-{\disjconjintropattern} as {\tt destruct {\ident} as
-{\disjconjintropattern}} would.
-
-\item {\tt eapply \nelist{{\term}{,} with {\bindinglist}}{,} in {\ident} as {\disjconjintropattern}}
-
-This works as {\tt apply \nelist{{\term}{,} with {\bindinglist}}{,} in {\ident} as {\disjconjintropattern}} but using {\tt eapply}.
-
-\item {\tt simple apply {\term} in {\ident}}
-\tacindex{simple apply {\ldots} in}
-\tacindex{simple eapply {\ldots} in}
-
-This behaves like {\tt apply {\term} in {\ident}} but it reasons
-modulo conversion only on subterms that contain no variables to
-instantiate. For instance, if {\tt id := fun x:nat => x} and {\tt H :
- forall y, id y = y -> True} and {\tt H0 : O = O} then {\tt simple
- apply H in H0} does not succeed because it would require the
-conversion of {\tt f ?y} and {\tt O} where {\tt ?y} is a variable to
-instantiate. Tactic {\tt simple apply {\term} in {\ident}} does not
-either traverse tuples as {\tt apply {\term} in {\ident}} does.
-
-\item {\tt \zeroone{simple} apply \nelist{{\term} \zeroone{with {\bindinglist}}}{,} in {\ident} \zeroone{as {\disjconjintropattern}}}\\
-{\tt \zeroone{simple} eapply \nelist{{\term} \zeroone{with {\bindinglist}}}{,} in {\ident} \zeroone{as {\disjconjintropattern}}}
-
-This summarizes the different syntactic variants of {\tt apply {\term}
- in {\ident}} and {\tt eapply {\term} in {\ident}}.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt generalize \term
-\tacindex{generalize}
-\label{generalize}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It generalizes the conclusion w.r.t.
-one subterm of it. For example:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Goal forall x y:nat, (0 <= x + y + y).
-intros.
-\end{coq_eval}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Show.
-generalize (x + y + y).
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-If the goal is $G$ and $t$ is a subterm of type $T$ in the goal, then
-{\tt generalize} \textit{t} replaces the goal by {\tt forall (x:$T$), $G'$}
-where $G'$ is obtained from $G$ by replacing all occurrences of $t$ by
-{\tt x}. The name of the variable (here {\tt n}) is chosen based on $T$.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt generalize {\term$_1$ , \dots\ , \term$_n$}}
-
- Is equivalent to {\tt generalize \term$_n$; \dots\ ; generalize
- \term$_1$}. Note that the sequence of \term$_i$'s are processed
- from $n$ to $1$.
-
-\item {\tt generalize {\term} at {\num$_1$ \dots\ \num$_i$}}
-
- Is equivalent to {\tt generalize \term} but generalizing only over
- the specified occurrences of {\term} (counting from left to right on the
- expression printed using option {\tt Set Printing All}).
-
-\item {\tt generalize {\term} as {\ident}}
-
- Is equivalent to {\tt generalize \term} but use {\ident} to name the
- generalized hypothesis.
-
-\item {\tt generalize {\term$_1$} at {\num$_{11}$ \dots\ \num$_{1i_1}$}
- as {\ident$_1$}
- , {\ldots} ,
- {\term$_n$} at {\num$_{n1}$ \dots\ \num$_{ni_n}$}
- as {\ident$_2$}}
-
- This is the most general form of {\tt generalize} that combines the
- previous behaviors.
-
-\item {\tt generalize dependent \term} \tacindex{generalize dependent}
-
- This generalizes {\term} but also {\em all} hypotheses which depend
- on {\term}. It clears the generalized hypotheses.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-\subsection{\tt revert \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$
-\tacindex{revert}
-\label{revert}}
-
-This applies to any goal with variables \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$.
-It moves the hypotheses (possibly defined) to the goal, if this respects
-dependencies. This tactic is the inverse of {\tt intro}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindexbis{{\ident} is used in the hypothesis {\ident'}}{is
- used in the hypothesis}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt revert dependent \ident \tacindex{revert dependent}}
-
- This moves to the goal the hypothesis \ident\ and all hypotheses
- which depend on it.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt change \term
-\tacindex{change}
-\label{change}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It implements the rule
-``Conv''\index{Typing rules!Conv} given in Section~\ref{Conv}. {\tt
- change U} replaces the current goal \T\ with \U\ providing that
-\U\ is well-formed and that \T\ and \U\ are convertible.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Not convertible}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\tacindex{change \dots\ in}
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt change \term$_1$ with \term$_2$}
-
- This replaces the occurrences of \term$_1$ by \term$_2$ in the
- current goal. The terms \term$_1$ and \term$_2$ must be
- convertible.
-
-\item {\tt change \term$_1$ at \num$_1$ \dots\ \num$_i$ with \term$_2$}
-
- This replaces the occurrences numbered \num$_1$ \dots\ \num$_i$ of
- \term$_1$ by \term$_2$ in the current goal.
- The terms \term$_1$ and \term$_2$ must be convertible.
-
- \ErrMsg {\tt Too few occurrences}
-
-\item {\tt change {\term} in {\ident}}
-
-\item {\tt change \term$_1$ with \term$_2$ in {\ident}}
-
-\item {\tt change \term$_1$ at \num$_1$ \dots\ \num$_i$ with \term$_2$ in
- {\ident}}
-
- This applies the {\tt change} tactic not to the goal but to the
- hypothesis {\ident}.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\SeeAlso \ref{Conversion-tactics}
-
-\subsection{\tt fix {\ident} {\num}
-\tacindex{fix}
-\label{tactic:fix}}
-
-This tactic is a primitive tactic to start a proof by induction. In
-general, it is easier to rely on higher-level induction tactics such
-as the ones described in Section~\ref{Tac-induction}.
-
-In the syntax of the tactic, the identifier {\ident} is the name given
-to the induction hypothesis. The natural number {\num} tells on which
-premise of the current goal the induction acts, starting
-from 1 and counting both dependent and non dependent
-products. Especially, the current lemma must be composed of at least
-{\num} products.
-
-Like in a {\tt fix} expression, the induction
-hypotheses have to be used on structurally smaller arguments.
-The verification that inductive proof arguments are correct is done
-only at the time of registering the lemma in the environment. To know
-if the use of induction hypotheses is correct at some
-time of the interactive development of a proof, use the command {\tt
- Guarded} (see Section~\ref{Guarded}).
-
-\begin{Variants}
- \item {\tt fix} {\ident}$_1$ {\num} {\tt with (} {\ident}$_2$
- \nelist{{\binder}$_{2}$}{} \zeroone{{\tt \{ struct {\ident$'_2$}
- \}}} {\tt :} {\type}$_2$ {\tt )} {\ldots} {\tt (} {\ident}$_1$
- \nelist{{\binder}$_n$}{} \zeroone{{\tt \{ struct {\ident$'_n$} \}}}
- {\tt :} {\type}$_n$ {\tt )}
-
-This starts a proof by mutual induction. The statements to be
-simultaneously proved are respectively {\tt forall}
- \nelist{{\binder}$_2$}{}{\tt ,} {\type}$_2$, {\ldots}, {\tt forall}
- \nelist{{\binder}$_n$}{}{\tt ,} {\type}$_n$. The identifiers
-{\ident}$_1$ {\ldots} {\ident}$_n$ are the names of the induction
-hypotheses. The identifiers {\ident}$'_2$ {\ldots} {\ident}$'_n$ are the
-respective names of the premises on which the induction is performed
-in the statements to be simultaneously proved (if not given, the
-system tries to guess itself what they are).
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt cofix {\ident}
-\tacindex{cofix}
-\label{tactic:cofix}}
-
-This tactic starts a proof by coinduction. The identifier {\ident} is
-the name given to the coinduction hypothesis. Like in a {\tt cofix}
-expression, the use of induction hypotheses have to guarded by a
-constructor. The verification that the use of coinductive hypotheses
-is correct is done only at the time of registering the lemma in the
-environment. To know if the use of coinduction hypotheses is correct
-at some time of the interactive development of a proof, use the
-command {\tt Guarded} (see Section~\ref{Guarded}).
-
-
-\begin{Variants}
- \item {\tt cofix} {\ident}$_1$ {\tt with (} {\ident}$_2$
- \nelist{{\binder}$_2$}{} {\tt :} {\type}$_2$ {\tt )} {\ldots} {\tt
- (} {\ident}$_1$ \nelist{{\binder}$_1$}{} {\tt :} {\type}$_n$
- {\tt )}
-
-This starts a proof by mutual coinduction. The statements to be
-simultaneously proved are respectively {\tt forall}
-\nelist{{\binder}$_2$}{}{\tt ,} {\type}$_2$, {\ldots}, {\tt forall}
- \nelist{{\binder}$_n$}{}{\tt ,} {\type}$_n$. The identifiers
- {\ident}$_1$ {\ldots} {\ident}$_n$ are the names of the
- coinduction hypotheses.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt evar (\ident:\term)
-\tacindex{evar}
-\label{evar}}
-
-The {\tt evar} tactic creates a new local definition named \ident\ with
-type \term\ in the context. The body of this binding is a fresh
-existential variable.
-
-\subsection{\tt instantiate (\num:= \term)
-\tacindex{instantiate}
-\label{instantiate}}
-
-The {\tt instantiate} tactic allows to solve an existential variable
-with the term \term. The \num\ argument is the position of the
-existential variable from right to left in the conclusion. This cannot be
-the number of the existential variable since this number is different
-in every session.
-
-\begin{Variants}
- \item {\tt instantiate (\num:=\term) in \ident}
-
- \item {\tt instantiate (\num:=\term) in (Value of \ident)}
-
- \item {\tt instantiate (\num:=\term) in (Type of \ident)}
-
-These allow to refer respectively to existential variables occurring in
-a hypothesis or in the body or the type of a local definition.
-
- \item {\tt instantiate}
-
- Without argument, the {\tt instantiate} tactic tries to solve as
- many existential variables as possible, using information gathered
- from other tactics in the same tactical. This is automatically
- done after each complete tactic (i.e. after a dot in proof mode),
- but not, for example, between each tactic when they are sequenced
- by semicolons.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt admit
-\tacindex{admit}
-\label{admit}}
-
-The {\tt admit} tactic ``solves'' the current subgoal by an
-axiom. This typically allows to temporarily skip a subgoal so as to
-progress further in the rest of the proof. To know if some proof still
-relies on unproved subgoals, one can use the command {\tt Print
-Assumptions} (see Section~\ref{PrintAssumptions}). Admitted subgoals
-have names of the form {\ident}\texttt{\_admitted} possibly followed
-by a number.
-
-\subsection{\tt constr\_eq \term$_1$ \term$_2$
-\tacindex{constr\_eq}
-\label{constreq}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It checks whether its arguments are
-equal modulo alpha conversion and casts.
-
-\ErrMsg \errindex{Not equal}
-
-\subsection{\tt is\_evar \term
-\tacindex{is\_evar}
-\label{isevar}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It checks whether its argument is an
-existential variable. Existential variables are uninstantiated
-variables generated by e.g. {\tt eapply} (see Section~\ref{apply}).
-
-\ErrMsg \errindex{Not an evar}
-
-\subsection{\tt has\_evar \term
-\tacindex{has\_evar}
-\label{hasevar}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It checks whether its argument has an
-existential variable as a subterm. Unlike {\tt context} patterns
-combined with {\tt is\_evar}, this tactic scans all subterms,
-including those under binders.
-
-\ErrMsg \errindex{No evars}
-
-\subsection{\tt is\_var \term
-\tacindex{is\_var}
-\label{isvar}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It checks whether its argument is a
-variable or hypothesis in the current goal context or in the opened sections.
-
-\ErrMsg \errindex{Not a variable or hypothesis}
-
-\subsection{Bindings list
-\index{Binding list}
-\label{Binding-list}}
-
-Tactics that take a term as argument may also support a bindings list, so
-as to instantiate some parameters of the term by name or position.
-The general form of a term equipped with a bindings list is {\tt
-{\term} with {\bindinglist}} where {\bindinglist} may be of two
-different forms:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-\item In a bindings list of the form {\tt (\vref$_1$ := \term$_1$)
- \dots\ (\vref$_n$ := \term$_n$)}, {\vref} is either an {\ident} or a
- {\num}. The references are determined according to the type of
- {\term}. If \vref$_i$ is an identifier, this identifier has to be
- bound in the type of {\term} and the binding provides the tactic
- with an instance for the parameter of this name. If \vref$_i$ is
- some number $n$, this number denotes the $n$-th non dependent
- premise of the {\term}, as determined by the type of {\term}.
-
- \ErrMsg \errindex{No such binder}
-
-\item A bindings list can also be a simple list of terms {\tt
- \term$_1$ \dots\term$_n$}. In that case the references to
- which these terms correspond are determined by the tactic. In case
- of {\tt induction}, {\tt destruct}, {\tt elim} and {\tt case} (see
- Section~\ref{elim}) the terms have to provide instances for all the
- dependent products in the type of \term\ while in the case of {\tt
- apply}, or of {\tt constructor} and its variants, only instances for
- the dependent products which are not bound in the conclusion of the
- type are required.
-
- \ErrMsg \errindex{Not the right number of missing arguments}
-\end{itemize}
-
-\subsection{Occurrences sets and occurrences clauses}
-\label{Occurrences clauses}
-\index{Occurrences clauses}
-
-An occurrences clause is a modifier to some tactics that obeys the
-following syntax:
-
-$\!\!\!$\begin{tabular}{lcl}
-{\occclause} & ::= & {\tt in} {\occgoalset} \\
-{\occgoalset} & ::= &
- \zeroone{{\ident$_1$} \zeroone{\atoccurrences} {\tt ,} \\
-& & {\dots} {\tt ,}\\
-& & {\ident$_m$} \zeroone{\atoccurrences}}\\
-& & \zeroone{{\tt |-} \zeroone{{\tt *} \zeroone{\atoccurrences}}}\\
-& | &
- {\tt *} {\tt |-} \zeroone{{\tt *} \zeroone{\atoccurrences}}\\
-& | &
- {\tt *}\\
-{\atoccurrences} & ::= & {\tt at} {\occlist}\\
-{\occlist} & ::= & \zeroone{{\tt -}} {\num$_1$} \dots\ {\num$_n$}
-\end{tabular}
-
-The role of an occurrence clause is to select a set of occurrences of
-a {\term} in a goal. In the first case, the {{\ident$_i$}
-\zeroone{{\tt at} {\num$_1^i$} \dots\ {\num$_{n_i}^i$}}} parts
-indicate that occurrences have to be selected in the hypotheses named
-{\ident$_i$}. If no numbers are given for hypothesis {\ident$_i$},
-then all occurrences of {\term} in the hypothesis are selected. If
-numbers are given, they refer to occurrences of {\term} when the term
-is printed using option {\tt Set Printing All} (see
-Section~\ref{SetPrintingAll}), counting from left to right. In
-particular, occurrences of {\term} in implicit arguments (see
-Section~\ref{Implicit Arguments}) or coercions (see
-Section~\ref{Coercions}) are counted.
-
-If a minus sign is given between {\tt at} and the list of occurrences,
-it negates the condition so that the clause denotes all the occurrences except
-the ones explicitly mentioned after the minus sign.
-
-As an exception to the left-to-right order, the occurrences in the
-{\tt return} subexpression of a {\tt match} are considered {\em
-before} the occurrences in the matched term.
-
-In the second case, the {\tt *} on the left of {\tt |-} means that
-all occurrences of {\term} are selected in every hypothesis.
-
-In the first and second case, if {\tt *} is mentioned on the right of
-{\tt |-}, the occurrences of the conclusion of the goal have to be
-selected. If some numbers are given, then only the occurrences denoted
-by these numbers are selected. In no numbers are given, all
-occurrences of {\term} in the goal are selected.
-
-Finally, the last notation is an abbreviation for {\tt * |- *}. Note
-also that {\tt |-} is optional in the first case when no {\tt *} is
-given.
-
-Here are some tactics that understand occurrences clauses:
-{\tt set}, {\tt remember}, {\tt induction}, {\tt destruct}.
-
-\SeeAlso~Sections~\ref{tactic:set}, \ref{Tac-induction}, \ref{SetPrintingAll}.
-
-
-\section{Negation and contradiction}
-
-\subsection{\tt absurd \term
-\tacindex{absurd}
-\label{absurd}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The argument {\term} is any
-proposition {\tt P} of type {\tt Prop}. This tactic applies {\tt
- False} elimination, that is it deduces the current goal from {\tt
- False}, and generates as subgoals {\tt $\sim$P} and {\tt P}. It is
-very useful in proofs by cases, where some cases are impossible. In
-most cases, \texttt{P} or $\sim$\texttt{P} is one of the hypotheses of
-the local context.
-
-\subsection{\tt contradiction
-\label{contradiction}
-\tacindex{contradiction}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The {\tt contradiction} tactic
-attempts to find in the current context (after all {\tt intros}) one
-hypothesis which is equivalent to {\tt False}. It permits to prune
-irrelevant cases. This tactic is a macro for the tactics sequence
-{\tt intros; elimtype False; assumption}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{No such assumption}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt contradiction \ident}
-
-The proof of {\tt False} is searched in the hypothesis named \ident.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection {\tt contradict \ident}
-\label{contradict}
-\tacindex{contradict}
-
-This tactic allows to manipulate negated hypothesis and goals. The
-name \ident\ should correspond to a hypothesis. With
-{\tt contradict H}, the current goal and context is transformed in
-the following way:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item {\tt H:$\neg$A $\vd$ B} \ becomes \ {\tt $\vd$ A}
-\item {\tt H:$\neg$A $\vd$ $\neg$B} \ becomes \ {\tt H: B $\vd$ A }
-\item {\tt H: A $\vd$ B} \ becomes \ {\tt $\vd$ $\neg$A}
-\item {\tt H: A $\vd$ $\neg$B} \ becomes \ {\tt H: B $\vd$ $\neg$A}
-\end{itemize}
-
-\subsection{\tt exfalso}
-\label{exfalso}
-\tacindex{exfalso}
-
-This tactic implements the ``ex falso quodlibet'' logical principle:
-an elimination of {\tt False} is performed on the current goal, and the
-user is then required to prove that {\tt False} is indeed provable in
-the current context. This tactic is a macro for {\tt elimtype False}.
-
-\section{Conversion tactics
-\index{Conversion tactics}
-\label{Conversion-tactics}}
-
-This set of tactics implements different specialized usages of the
-tactic \texttt{change}.
-
-All conversion tactics (including \texttt{change}) can be
-parameterized by the parts of the goal where the conversion can
-occur. This is done using \emph{goal clauses} which consists in a list
-of hypotheses and, optionally, of a reference to the conclusion of the
-goal. For defined hypothesis it is possible to specify if the
-conversion should occur on the type part, the body part or both
-(default).
-
-\index{Clauses}
-\index{Goal clauses}
-Goal clauses are written after a conversion tactic (tactics
-\texttt{set}~\ref{tactic:set}, \texttt{rewrite}~\ref{rewrite},
-\texttt{replace}~\ref{tactic:replace} and
-\texttt{autorewrite}~\ref{tactic:autorewrite} also use goal clauses) and
-are introduced by the keyword \texttt{in}. If no goal clause is provided,
-the default is to perform the conversion only in the conclusion.
-
-The syntax and description of the various goal clauses is the following:
-\begin{description}
-\item[]\texttt{in {\ident}$_1$ $\ldots$ {\ident}$_n$ |- } only in hypotheses {\ident}$_1$
- \ldots {\ident}$_n$
-\item[]\texttt{in {\ident}$_1$ $\ldots$ {\ident}$_n$ |- *} in hypotheses {\ident}$_1$ \ldots
- {\ident}$_n$ and in the conclusion
-\item[]\texttt{in * |-} in every hypothesis
-\item[]\texttt{in *} (equivalent to \texttt{in * |- *}) everywhere
-\item[]\texttt{in (type of {\ident}$_1$) (value of {\ident}$_2$) $\ldots$ |-} in
- type part of {\ident}$_1$, in the value part of {\ident}$_2$, etc.
-\end{description}
-
-For backward compatibility, the notation \texttt{in}~{\ident}$_1$\ldots {\ident}$_n$
-performs the conversion in hypotheses {\ident}$_1$\ldots {\ident}$_n$.
-
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-%voir reduction__conv_x : histoires d'univers.
-%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-
-\subsection[{\tt cbv \flag$_1$ \dots\ \flag$_n$}, {\tt lazy \flag$_1$
-\dots\ \flag$_n$} and {\tt compute}]
-{{\tt cbv \flag$_1$ \dots\ \flag$_n$}, {\tt lazy \flag$_1$
-\dots\ \flag$_n$} and {\tt compute}
-\tacindex{cbv}
-\tacindex{lazy}
-\tacindex{compute}
-\tacindex{vm\_compute}\label{vmcompute}}
-
-These parameterized reduction tactics apply to any goal and perform
-the normalization of the goal according to the specified flags. In
-correspondence with the kinds of reduction considered in \Coq\, namely
-$\beta$ (reduction of functional application), $\delta$ (unfolding of
-transparent constants, see \ref{Transparent}), $\iota$ (reduction of
-pattern-matching over a constructed term, and unfolding of {\tt fix}
-and {\tt cofix} expressions) and $\zeta$ (contraction of local
-definitions), the flag are either {\tt beta}, {\tt delta}, {\tt iota}
-or {\tt zeta}. The {\tt delta} flag itself can be refined into {\tt
-delta [\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]} or {\tt delta
--[\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]}, restricting in the first case the
-constants to unfold to the constants listed, and restricting in the
-second case the constant to unfold to all but the ones explicitly
-mentioned. Notice that the {\tt delta} flag does not apply to
-variables bound by a let-in construction inside the term itself (use
-here the {\tt zeta} flag). In any cases, opaque constants are not
-unfolded (see Section~\ref{Opaque}).
-
-The goal may be normalized with two strategies: {\em lazy} ({\tt lazy}
-tactic), or {\em call-by-value} ({\tt cbv} tactic). The lazy strategy
-is a call-by-need strategy, with sharing of reductions: the arguments of a
-function call are partially evaluated only when necessary, and if an
-argument is used several times then it is computed only once. This
-reduction is efficient for reducing expressions with dead code. For
-instance, the proofs of a proposition {\tt exists~$x$. $P(x)$} reduce to a
-pair of a witness $t$, and a proof that $t$ satisfies the predicate
-$P$. Most of the time, $t$ may be computed without computing the proof
-of $P(t)$, thanks to the lazy strategy.
-
-The call-by-value strategy is the one used in ML languages: the
-arguments of a function call are evaluated first, using a weak
-reduction (no reduction under the $\lambda$-abstractions). Despite the
-lazy strategy always performs fewer reductions than the call-by-value
-strategy, the latter is generally more efficient for evaluating purely
-computational expressions (i.e. with few dead code).
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt compute} \tacindex{compute}\\
- {\tt cbv}
-
- These are synonyms for {\tt cbv beta delta iota zeta}.
-
-\item {\tt lazy}
-
- This is a synonym for {\tt lazy beta delta iota zeta}.
-
-\item {\tt compute [\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]}\\
- {\tt cbv [\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]}
-
- These are synonyms of {\tt cbv beta delta
- [\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$] iota zeta}.
-
-\item {\tt compute -[\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]}\\
- {\tt cbv -[\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]}
-
- These are synonyms of {\tt cbv beta delta
- -[\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$] iota zeta}.
-
-\item {\tt lazy [\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]}\\
- {\tt lazy -[\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$]}
-
- These are respectively synonyms of {\tt cbv beta delta
- [\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$] iota zeta} and {\tt cbv beta delta
- -[\qualid$_1$\ldots\qualid$_k$] iota zeta}.
-
-\item {\tt vm\_compute} \tacindex{vm\_compute}
-
- This tactic evaluates the goal using the optimized call-by-value
- evaluation bytecode-based virtual machine. This algorithm is
- dramatically more efficient than the algorithm used for the {\tt
- cbv} tactic, but it cannot be fine-tuned. It is specially
- interesting for full evaluation of algebraic objects. This includes
- the case of reflexion-based tactics.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-% Obsolete? Anyway not very important message
-%\begin{ErrMsgs}
-%\item \errindex{Delta must be specified before}
-%
-% A list of constants appeared before the {\tt delta} flag.
-%\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-
-\subsection{{\tt red}
-\tacindex{red}}
-
-This tactic applies to a goal which has the form {\tt
- forall (x:T1)\dots(xk:Tk), c t1 \dots\ tn} where {\tt c} is a constant. If
-{\tt c} is transparent then it replaces {\tt c} with its definition
-(say {\tt t}) and then reduces {\tt (t t1 \dots\ tn)} according to
-$\beta\iota\zeta$-reduction rules.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Not reducible}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{{\tt hnf}
-\tacindex{hnf}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It replaces the current goal with its
-head normal form according to the $\beta\delta\iota\zeta$-reduction
-rules, i.e. it reduces the head of the goal until it becomes a
-product or an irreducible term.
-
-\Example
-The term \verb+forall n:nat, (plus (S n) (S n))+ is not reduced by {\tt hnf}.
-
-\Rem The $\delta$ rule only applies to transparent constants
-(see Section~\ref{Opaque} on transparency and opacity).
-
-\subsection{\tt simpl
-\tacindex{simpl}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The tactic {\tt simpl} first applies
-$\beta\iota$-reduction rule. Then it expands transparent constants
-and tries to reduce {\tt T'} according, once more, to $\beta\iota$
-rules. But when the $\iota$ rule is not applicable then possible
-$\delta$-reductions are not applied. For instance trying to use {\tt
-simpl} on {\tt (plus n O)=n} changes nothing. Notice that only
-transparent constants whose name can be reused as such in the
-recursive calls are possibly unfolded. For instance a constant defined
-by {\tt plus' := plus} is possibly unfolded and reused in the
-recursive calls, but a constant such as {\tt succ := plus (S O)} is
-never unfolded.
-
-\tacindex{simpl \dots\ in}
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt simpl {\term}}
-
- This applies {\tt simpl} only to the occurrences of {\term} in the
- current goal.
-
-\item {\tt simpl {\term} at \num$_1$ \dots\ \num$_i$}
-
- This applies {\tt simpl} only to the \num$_1$, \dots, \num$_i$
- occurrences of {\term} in the current goal.
-
- \ErrMsg {\tt Too few occurrences}
-
-\item {\tt simpl {\ident}}
-
- This applies {\tt simpl} only to the applicative subterms whose head
- occurrence is {\ident}.
-
-\item {\tt simpl {\ident} at \num$_1$ \dots\ \num$_i$}
-
- This applies {\tt simpl} only to the \num$_1$, \dots, \num$_i$
-applicative subterms whose head occurrence is {\ident}.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt unfold \qualid
-\tacindex{unfold}
-\label{unfold}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The argument {\qualid} must denote a
-defined transparent constant or local definition (see Sections~\ref{Basic-definitions} and~\ref{Transparent}). The tactic {\tt
- unfold} applies the $\delta$ rule to each occurrence of the constant
-to which {\qualid} refers in the current goal and then replaces it
-with its $\beta\iota$-normal form.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item {\qualid} \errindex{does not denote an evaluable constant}
-
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt unfold {\qualid}$_1$, \dots, \qualid$_n$}
- \tacindex{unfold \dots\ in}
-
- Replaces {\em simultaneously} {\qualid}$_1$, \dots, {\qualid}$_n$
- with their definitions and replaces the current goal with its
- $\beta\iota$ normal form.
-
-\item {\tt unfold {\qualid}$_1$ at \num$_1^1$, \dots, \num$_i^1$,
-\dots,\ \qualid$_n$ at \num$_1^n$ \dots\ \num$_j^n$}
-
- The lists \num$_1^1$, \dots, \num$_i^1$ and \num$_1^n$, \dots,
- \num$_j^n$ specify the occurrences of {\qualid}$_1$, \dots,
- \qualid$_n$ to be unfolded. Occurrences are located from left to
- right.
-
- \ErrMsg {\tt bad occurrence number of {\qualid}$_i$}
-
- \ErrMsg {\qualid}$_i$ {\tt does not occur}
-
-\item {\tt unfold {\qstring}}
-
- If {\qstring} denotes the discriminating symbol of a notation (e.g. {\tt
- "+"}) or an expression defining a notation (e.g. \verb!"_ + _"!), and
- this notation refers to an unfoldable constant, then the tactic
- unfolds it.
-
-\item {\tt unfold {\qstring}\%{\delimkey}}
-
- This is variant of {\tt unfold {\qstring}} where {\qstring} gets its
- interpretation from the scope bound to the delimiting key
- {\delimkey} instead of its default interpretation (see
- Section~\ref{scopechange}).
-
-\item {\tt unfold \qualidorstring$_1$ at \num$_1^1$, \dots, \num$_i^1$,
-\dots,\ \qualidorstring$_n$ at \num$_1^n$ \dots\ \num$_j^n$}
-
- This is the most general form, where {\qualidorstring} is either a
- {\qualid} or a {\qstring} referring to a notation.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{{\tt fold} \term
-\tacindex{fold}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The term \term\ is reduced using the {\tt red}
-tactic. Every occurrence of the resulting term in the goal is then
-replaced by \term.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt fold} \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$
-
- Equivalent to {\tt fold} \term$_1${\tt;}\ldots{\tt; fold} \term$_n$.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{{\tt pattern {\term}}
-\tacindex{pattern}
-\label{pattern}}
-
-This command applies to any goal. The argument {\term} must be a free
-subterm of the current goal. The command {\tt pattern} performs
-$\beta$-expansion (the inverse of $\bt$-reduction) of the current goal
-(say \T) by
-\begin{enumerate}
-\item replacing all occurrences of {\term} in {\T} with a fresh variable
-\item abstracting this variable
-\item applying the abstracted goal to {\term}
-\end{enumerate}
-
-For instance, if the current goal $T$ is expressible has $\phi(t)$
-where the notation captures all the instances of $t$ in $\phi(t)$,
-then {\tt pattern $t$} transforms it into {\tt (fun x:$A$ => $\phi(${\tt
-x}$)$) $t$}. This command can be used, for instance, when the tactic
-{\tt apply} fails on matching.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt pattern {\term} at {\num$_1$} \dots\ {\num$_n$}}
-
- Only the occurrences {\num$_1$} \dots\ {\num$_n$} of {\term} are
- considered for $\beta$-expansion. Occurrences are located from left
- to right.
-
-\item {\tt pattern {\term} at - {\num$_1$} \dots\ {\num$_n$}}
-
- All occurrences except the occurrences of indexes {\num$_1$} \dots\
- {\num$_n$} of {\term} are considered for
- $\beta$-expansion. Occurrences are located from left to right.
-
-\item {\tt pattern {\term$_1$}, \dots, {\term$_m$}}
-
- Starting from a goal $\phi(t_1 \dots\ t_m)$, the tactic
- {\tt pattern $t_1$, \dots,\ $t_m$} generates the equivalent goal {\tt
- (fun (x$_1$:$A_1$) \dots\ (x$_m$:$A_m$) => $\phi(${\tt x$_1$\dots\
- x$_m$}$)$) $t_1$ \dots\ $t_m$}.\\ If $t_i$ occurs in one of the
- generated types $A_j$ these occurrences will also be considered and
- possibly abstracted.
-
-\item {\tt pattern {\term$_1$} at {\num$_1^1$} \dots\ {\num$_{n_1}^1$}, \dots,
- {\term$_m$} at {\num$_1^m$} \dots\ {\num$_{n_m}^m$}}
-
- This behaves as above but processing only the occurrences \num$_1^1$,
- \dots, \num$_i^1$ of \term$_1$, \dots, \num$_1^m$, \dots, \num$_j^m$
- of \term$_m$ starting from \term$_m$.
-
-\item {\tt pattern} {\term$_1$} \zeroone{{\tt at \zeroone{-}} {\num$_1^1$} \dots\ {\num$_{n_1}^1$}} {\tt ,} \dots {\tt ,}
- {\term$_m$} \zeroone{{\tt at \zeroone{-}} {\num$_1^m$} \dots\ {\num$_{n_m}^m$}}
-
- This is the most general syntax that combines the different variants.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{Conversion tactics applied to hypotheses}
-
-{\convtactic} {\tt in} \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$
-
-Applies the conversion tactic {\convtactic} to the
-hypotheses \ident$_1$, \ldots, \ident$_n$. The tactic {\convtactic} is
-any of the conversion tactics listed in this section.
-
-If \ident$_i$ is a local definition, then \ident$_i$ can be replaced
-by (Type of \ident$_i$) to address not the body but the type of the
-local definition. Example: {\tt unfold not in (Type of H1) (Type of H3).}
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{No such hypothesis} : {\ident}.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-
-\section{Introductions}
-
-Introduction tactics address goals which are inductive constants.
-They are used when one guesses that the goal can be obtained with one
-of its constructors' type.
-
-\subsection{\tt constructor \num
-\label{constructor}
-\tacindex{constructor}}
-
-This tactic applies to a goal such that the head of its conclusion is
-an inductive constant (say {\tt I}). The argument {\num} must be less
-or equal to the numbers of constructor(s) of {\tt I}. Let {\tt ci} be
-the {\tt i}-th constructor of {\tt I}, then {\tt constructor i} is
-equivalent to {\tt intros; apply ci}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Not an inductive product}
-\item \errindex{Not enough constructors}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{constructor}
-
- This tries \texttt{constructor 1} then \texttt{constructor 2},
- \dots\ , then \texttt{constructor} \textit{n} where \textit{n} if
- the number of constructors of the head of the goal.
-
-\item {\tt constructor \num~with} {\bindinglist}
-
- Let {\tt ci} be the {\tt i}-th constructor of {\tt I}, then {\tt
- constructor i with \bindinglist} is equivalent to {\tt intros;
- apply ci with \bindinglist}.
-
- \Warning the terms in the \bindinglist\ are checked
- in the context where {\tt constructor} is executed and not in the
- context where {\tt apply} is executed (the introductions are not
- taken into account).
-
-% To document?
-% \item {\tt constructor {\tactic}}
-
-\item {\tt split}\tacindex{split}
-
- Applies if {\tt I} has only one constructor, typically in the case
- of conjunction $A\land B$. Then, it is equivalent to {\tt constructor 1}.
-
-\item {\tt exists {\bindinglist}}\tacindex{exists}
-
- Applies if {\tt I} has only one constructor, for instance in the
- case of existential quantification $\exists x\cdot P(x)$.
- Then, it is equivalent to {\tt intros; constructor 1 with \bindinglist}.
-
-\item {\tt exists \nelist{\bindinglist}{,}}
-
- This iteratively applies {\tt exists {\bindinglist}}.
-
-\item {\tt left}\tacindex{left}\\
- {\tt right}\tacindex{right}
-
- Apply if {\tt I} has two constructors, for instance in the case of
- disjunction $A\lor B$. Then, they are respectively equivalent to {\tt
- constructor 1} and {\tt constructor 2}.
-
-\item {\tt left with \bindinglist}\\
- {\tt right with \bindinglist}\\
- {\tt split with \bindinglist}
-
- As soon as the inductive type has the right number of constructors,
- these expressions are equivalent to calling {\tt
- constructor $i$ with \bindinglist} for the appropriate $i$.
-
-\item \texttt{econstructor}\tacindex{econstructor}\\
- \texttt{eexists}\tacindex{eexists}\\
- \texttt{esplit}\tacindex{esplit}\\
- \texttt{eleft}\tacindex{eleft}\\
- \texttt{eright}\tacindex{eright}\\
-
- These tactics and their variants behave like \texttt{constructor},
- \texttt{exists}, \texttt{split}, \texttt{left}, \texttt{right} and
- their variants but they introduce existential variables instead of
- failing when the instantiation of a variable cannot be found (cf
- \texttt{eapply} and Section~\ref{eapply-example}).
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\section[Induction and Case Analysis]{Induction and Case Analysis
-\label{Tac-induction}}
-
-The tactics presented in this section implement induction or case
-analysis on inductive or coinductive objects (see
-Section~\ref{Cic-inductive-definitions}).
-
-\subsection{\tt induction \term
-\tacindex{induction}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The type of the argument {\term} must
-be an inductive constant. Then, the tactic {\tt induction}
-generates subgoals, one for each possible form of {\term}, i.e. one
-for each constructor of the inductive type.
-
-The tactic {\tt induction} automatically replaces every occurrences
-of {\term} in the conclusion and the hypotheses of the goal. It
-automatically adds induction hypotheses (using names of the form {\tt
- IHn1}) to the local context. If some hypothesis must not be taken
-into account in the induction hypothesis, then it needs to be removed
-first (you can also use the tactics {\tt elim} or {\tt simple induction},
-see below).
-
-There are particular cases:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item If {\term} is an identifier {\ident} denoting a quantified
-variable of the conclusion of the goal, then {\tt induction {\ident}}
-behaves as {\tt intros until {\ident}; induction {\ident}}.
-
-\item If {\term} is a {\num}, then {\tt induction {\num}} behaves as
-{\tt intros until {\num}} followed by {\tt induction} applied to the
-last introduced hypothesis.
-
-\Rem For simple induction on a numeral, use syntax {\tt induction
-({\num})} (not very interesting anyway).
-
-\end{itemize}
-
-\Example
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Lemma induction_test : forall n:nat, n = n -> n <= n.
-intros n H.
-induction n.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Not an inductive product}
-\item \errindex{Unable to find an instance for the variables
-{\ident} \ldots {\ident}}
-
- Use in this case
- the variant {\tt elim \dots\ with \dots} below.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item{\tt induction {\term} as {\disjconjintropattern}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt induction {\term}} but uses the names in
- {\disjconjintropattern} to name the variables introduced in the context.
- The {\disjconjintropattern} must typically be of the form
- {\tt [} $p_{11}$ \ldots
- $p_{1n_1}$ {\tt |} {\ldots} {\tt |} $p_{m1}$ \ldots $p_{mn_m}$ {\tt
- ]} with $m$ being the number of constructors of the type of
- {\term}. Each variable introduced by {\tt induction} in the context
- of the $i^{th}$ goal gets its name from the list $p_{i1}$ \ldots
- $p_{in_i}$ in order. If there are not enough names, {\tt induction}
- invents names for the remaining variables to introduce. More
- generally, the $p_{ij}$ can be any disjunctive/conjunctive
- introduction pattern (see Section~\ref{intros-pattern}). For instance,
- for an inductive type with one constructor, the pattern notation
- {\tt ($p_{1}$,\ldots,$p_{n}$)} can be used instead of
- {\tt [} $p_{1}$ \ldots $p_{n}$ {\tt ]}.
-
-\item{\tt induction {\term} as {\namingintropattern}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt induction {\term}} but adds an equation between
- {\term} and the value that {\term} takes in each of the induction
- case. The name of the equation is built according to
- {\namingintropattern} which can be an identifier, a ``?'', etc, as
- indicated in Section~\ref{intros-pattern}.
-
-\item{\tt induction {\term} as {\namingintropattern} {\disjconjintropattern}}
-
- This combines the two previous forms.
-
-\item{\tt induction {\term} with \bindinglist}
-
- This behaves like \texttt{induction {\term}} providing explicit
- instances for the premises of the type of {\term} (see the syntax of
- bindings in Section~\ref{Binding-list}).
-
-\item{\tt einduction {\term}\tacindex{einduction}}
-
- This tactic behaves like \texttt{induction {\term}} excepts that it
- does not fail if some dependent premise of the type of {\term} is
- not inferable. Instead, the unresolved premises are posed as
- existential variables to be inferred later, in the same way as {\tt
- eapply} does (see Section~\ref{eapply-example}).
-
-\item {\tt induction {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt induction {\term$_1$}} but using {\term$_2$} as
- induction scheme. It does not expect the conclusion of the type of
- {\term$_1$} to be inductive.
-
-\item {\tt induction {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt induction {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$}} but
- also providing instances for the premises of the type of {\term$_2$}.
-
-\item \texttt{induction {\term}$_1$ $\ldots$ {\term}$_n$ using {\qualid}}
-
- This syntax is used for the case {\qualid} denotes an induction principle
- with complex predicates as the induction principles generated by
- {\tt Function} or {\tt Functional Scheme} may be.
-
-\item \texttt{induction {\term} in {\occgoalset}}
-
- This syntax is used for selecting which occurrences of {\term} the
- induction has to be carried on. The {\tt in {\atoccurrences}} clause is an
- occurrence clause whose syntax and behavior is described in
- Section~\ref{Occurrences clauses}.
-
- When an occurrence clause is given, an equation between {\term} and
- the value it gets in each case of the induction is added to the
- context of the subgoals corresponding to the induction cases (even
- if no clause {\tt as {\namingintropattern}} is given).
-
-\item {\tt induction {\term$_1$} with {\bindinglist$_1$} as {\namingintropattern} {\disjconjintropattern} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist$_2$} in {\occgoalset}}\\
- {\tt einduction {\term$_1$} with {\bindinglist$_1$} as {\namingintropattern} {\disjconjintropattern} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist$_2$} in {\occgoalset}}
-
- These are the most general forms of {\tt induction} and {\tt
- einduction}. It combines the effects of the {\tt with}, {\tt as},
- {\tt using}, and {\tt in} clauses.
-
-\item {\tt elim \term}\label{elim}
-
- This is a more basic induction tactic. Again, the type of the
- argument {\term} must be an inductive type. Then, according to
- the type of the goal, the tactic {\tt elim} chooses the appropriate
- destructor and applies it as the tactic {\tt apply}
- would do. For instance, if the proof context contains {\tt
- n:nat} and the current goal is {\tt T} of type {\tt
- Prop}, then {\tt elim n} is equivalent to {\tt apply nat\_ind with
- (n:=n)}. The tactic {\tt elim} does not modify the context of
- the goal, neither introduces the induction loading into the context
- of hypotheses.
-
- More generally, {\tt elim \term} also works when the type of {\term}
- is a statement with premises and whose conclusion is inductive. In
- that case the tactic performs induction on the conclusion of the
- type of {\term} and leaves the non-dependent premises of the type as
- subgoals. In the case of dependent products, the tactic tries to
- find an instance for which the elimination lemma applies and fails
- otherwise.
-
-\item {\tt elim {\term} with {\bindinglist}}
-
- Allows to give explicit instances to the premises of the type
- of {\term} (see Section~\ref{Binding-list}).
-
-\item{\tt eelim {\term}\tacindex{eelim}}
-
- In case the type of {\term} has dependent premises, this turns them into
- existential variables to be resolved later on.
-
-\item{\tt elim {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$}}\\
- {\tt elim {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist}\tacindex{elim \dots\ using}}
-
-Allows the user to give explicitly an elimination predicate
-{\term$_2$} which is not the standard one for the underlying inductive
-type of {\term$_1$}. The {\bindinglist} clause allows to
-instantiate premises of the type of {\term$_2$}.
-
-\item{\tt elim {\term$_1$} with {\bindinglist$_1$} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist$_2$}}\\
- {\tt eelim {\term$_1$} with {\bindinglist$_1$} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist$_2$}}
-
- These are the most general forms of {\tt elim} and {\tt eelim}. It
- combines the effects of the {\tt using} clause and of the two uses
- of the {\tt with} clause.
-
-\item {\tt elimtype \form}\tacindex{elimtype}
-
- The argument {\form} must be inductively defined. {\tt elimtype I}
- is equivalent to {\tt cut I. intro H{\rm\sl n}; elim H{\rm\sl n};
- clear H{\rm\sl n}}. Therefore the hypothesis {\tt H{\rm\sl n}} will
- not appear in the context(s) of the subgoal(s). Conversely, if {\tt
- t} is a term of (inductive) type {\tt I} and which does not occur
- in the goal then {\tt elim t} is equivalent to {\tt elimtype I; 2:
- exact t.}
-
-\item {\tt simple induction \ident}\tacindex{simple induction}
-
- This tactic behaves as {\tt intros until
- {\ident}; elim {\tt {\ident}}} when {\ident} is a quantified
- variable of the goal.
-
-\item {\tt simple induction {\num}}
-
- This tactic behaves as {\tt intros until
- {\num}; elim {\tt {\ident}}} where {\ident} is the name given by
- {\tt intros until {\num}} to the {\num}-th non-dependent premise of
- the goal.
-
-%% \item {\tt simple induction {\term}}\tacindex{simple induction}
-
-%% If {\term} is an {\ident} corresponding to a quantified variable of
-%% the goal then the tactic behaves as {\tt intros until {\ident}; elim
-%% {\tt {\ident}}}. If {\term} is a {\num} then the tactic behaves as
-%% {\tt intros until {\ident}; elim {\tt {\ident}}}. Otherwise, it is
-%% a synonym for {\tt elim {\term}}.
-
-%% \Rem For simple induction on a numeral, use syntax {\tt simple
-%% induction ({\num})}.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt destruct \term
-\tacindex{destruct}}
-\label{destruct}
-
-The tactic {\tt destruct} is used to perform case analysis without
-recursion. Its behavior is similar to {\tt induction} except
-that no induction hypothesis is generated. It applies to any goal and
-the type of {\term} must be inductively defined. There are particular cases:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-
-\item If {\term} is an identifier {\ident} denoting a quantified
-variable of the conclusion of the goal, then {\tt destruct {\ident}}
-behaves as {\tt intros until {\ident}; destruct {\ident}}.
-
-\item If {\term} is a {\num}, then {\tt destruct {\num}} behaves as
-{\tt intros until {\num}} followed by {\tt destruct} applied to the
-last introduced hypothesis.
-
-\Rem For destruction of a numeral, use syntax {\tt destruct
-({\num})} (not very interesting anyway).
-
-\end{itemize}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item{\tt destruct {\term} as {\disjconjintropattern}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt destruct {\term}} but uses the names in
- {\intropattern} to name the variables introduced in the context.
- The {\intropattern} must have the form {\tt [} $p_{11}$ \ldots
- $p_{1n_1}$ {\tt |} {\ldots} {\tt |} $p_{m1}$ \ldots $p_{mn_m}$ {\tt
- ]} with $m$ being the number of constructors of the type of
- {\term}. Each variable introduced by {\tt destruct} in the context
- of the $i^{th}$ goal gets its name from the list $p_{i1}$ \ldots
- $p_{in_i}$ in order. If there are not enough names, {\tt destruct}
- invents names for the remaining variables to introduce. More
- generally, the $p_{ij}$ can be any disjunctive/conjunctive
- introduction pattern (see Section~\ref{intros-pattern}). This
- provides a concise notation for nested destruction.
-
-% It is recommended to use this variant of {\tt destruct} for
-% robust proof scripts.
-
-\item{\tt destruct {\term} as {\disjconjintropattern} \_eqn}
-
- This behaves as {\tt destruct {\term}} but adds an equation between
- {\term} and the value that {\term} takes in each of the possible
- cases. The name of the equation is chosen by Coq. If
- {\disjconjintropattern} is simply {\tt []}, it is automatically considered
- as a disjunctive pattern of the appropriate size.
-
-\item{\tt destruct {\term} as {\disjconjintropattern} \_eqn: {\namingintropattern}}
-
- This behaves as {\tt destruct {\term} as
- {\disjconjintropattern} \_eqn} but use {\namingintropattern} to
- name the equation (see Section~\ref{intros-pattern}). Note that spaces
- can generally be removed around {\tt \_eqn}.
-
-\item{\tt destruct {\term} with \bindinglist}
-
- This behaves like \texttt{destruct {\term}} providing explicit
- instances for the dependent premises of the type of {\term} (see
- syntax of bindings in Section~\ref{Binding-list}).
-
-\item{\tt edestruct {\term}\tacindex{edestruct}}
-
- This tactic behaves like \texttt{destruct {\term}} excepts that it
- does not fail if the instance of a dependent premises of the type of
- {\term} is not inferable. Instead, the unresolved instances are left
- as existential variables to be inferred later, in the same way as
- {\tt eapply} does (see Section~\ref{eapply-example}).
-
-\item{\tt destruct {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$}}\\
- {\tt destruct {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist}}
-
- These are synonyms of {\tt induction {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$}} and
- {\tt induction {\term$_1$} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist}}.
-
-\item \texttt{destruct {\term} in {\occgoalset}}
-
- This syntax is used for selecting which occurrences of {\term} the
- case analysis has to be done on. The {\tt in {\occgoalset}} clause is an
- occurrence clause whose syntax and behavior is described in
- Section~\ref{Occurrences clauses}.
-
- When an occurrence clause is given, an equation between {\term} and
- the value it gets in each case of the analysis is added to the
- context of the subgoals corresponding to the cases (even
- if no clause {\tt as {\namingintropattern}} is given).
-
-\item{\tt destruct {\term$_1$} with {\bindinglist$_1$} as {\disjconjintropattern} \_eqn: {\namingintropattern} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist$_2$} in {\occgoalset}}\\
- {\tt edestruct {\term$_1$} with {\bindinglist$_1$} as {\disjconjintropattern} \_eqn: {\namingintropattern} using {\term$_2$} with {\bindinglist$_2$} in {\occgoalset}}
-
- These are the general forms of {\tt destruct} and {\tt edestruct}.
- They combine the effects of the {\tt with}, {\tt as}, {\tt using},
- and {\tt in} clauses.
-
-\item{\tt case \term}\label{case}\tacindex{case}
-
- The tactic {\tt case} is a more basic tactic to perform case
- analysis without recursion. It behaves as {\tt elim \term} but using
- a case-analysis elimination principle and not a recursive one.
-
-\item{\tt case\_eq \term}\label{case_eq}\tacindex{case\_eq}
-
- The tactic {\tt case\_eq} is a variant of the {\tt case} tactic that
- allow to perform case analysis on a term without completely
- forgetting its original form. This is done by generating equalities
- between the original form of the term and the outcomes of the case
- analysis. The effect of this tactic is similar to the effect of {\tt
- destruct {\term} in |- *} with the exception that no new hypotheses
- are introduced in the context.
-
-\item {\tt case {\term} with {\bindinglist}}
-
- Analogous to {\tt elim {\term} with {\bindinglist}} above.
-
-\item{\tt ecase {\term}\tacindex{ecase}}\\
- {\tt ecase {\term} with {\bindinglist}}
-
- In case the type of {\term} has dependent premises, or dependent
- premises whose values are not inferable from the {\tt with
- {\bindinglist}} clause, {\tt ecase} turns them into existential
- variables to be resolved later on.
-
-\item {\tt simple destruct \ident}\tacindex{simple destruct}
-
- This tactic behaves as {\tt intros until
- {\ident}; case {\tt {\ident}}} when {\ident} is a quantified
- variable of the goal.
-
-\item {\tt simple destruct {\num}}
-
- This tactic behaves as {\tt intros until
- {\num}; case {\tt {\ident}}} where {\ident} is the name given by
- {\tt intros until {\num}} to the {\num}-th non-dependent premise of
- the goal.
-
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt intros {\intropattern} {\ldots} {\intropattern}
-\label{intros-pattern}
-\tacindex{intros \intropattern}}
-\index{Introduction patterns}
-\index{Naming introduction patterns}
-\index{Disjunctive/conjunctive introduction patterns}
-
-This extension of the tactic {\tt intros} combines introduction of
-variables or hypotheses and case analysis. An {\em introduction pattern} is
-either:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item A {\em naming introduction pattern}, i.e. either one of:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item the pattern \texttt{?}
- \item the pattern \texttt{?\ident}
- \item an identifier
- \end{itemize}
-\item A {\em disjunctive/conjunctive introduction pattern}, i.e. either one of:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item a disjunction of lists of patterns:
- {\tt [$p_{11}$ {\ldots} $p_{1m_1}$ | {\ldots} | $p_{11}$ {\ldots} $p_{nm_n}$]}
- \item a conjunction of patterns: {\tt (} $p_1$ {\tt ,} {\ldots} {\tt ,} $p_n$ {\tt )}
- \item a list of patterns {\tt (} $p_1$\ {\tt \&}\ {\ldots}\ {\tt \&}\ $p_n$ {\tt )}
- for sequence of right-associative binary constructs
- \end{itemize}
-\item the wildcard: {\tt \_}
-\item the rewriting orientations: {\tt ->} or {\tt <-}
-\end{itemize}
-
-Assuming a goal of type {\tt $Q$ -> $P$} (non dependent product), or
-of type {\tt forall $x$:$T$, $P$} (dependent product), the behavior of
-{\tt intros $p$} is defined inductively over the structure of the
-introduction pattern $p$:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item introduction on \texttt{?} performs the introduction, and lets {\Coq}
- choose a fresh name for the variable;
-\item introduction on \texttt{?\ident} performs the introduction, and
- lets {\Coq} choose a fresh name for the variable based on {\ident};
-\item introduction on \texttt{\ident} behaves as described in
- Section~\ref{intro};
-\item introduction over a disjunction of list of patterns {\tt
- [$p_{11}$ {\ldots} $p_{1m_1}$ | {\ldots} | $p_{11}$ {\ldots}
- $p_{nm_n}$]} expects the product to be over an inductive type
- whose number of constructors is $n$ (or more generally over a type
- of conclusion an inductive type built from $n$ constructors,
- e.g. {\tt C -> A$\backslash$/B if $n=2$}): it destructs the introduced
- hypothesis as {\tt destruct} (see Section~\ref{destruct}) would and
- applies on each generated subgoal the corresponding tactic;
- \texttt{intros}~$p_{i1}$ {\ldots} $p_{im_i}$; if the disjunctive
- pattern is part of a sequence of patterns and is not the last
- pattern of the sequence, then {\Coq} completes the pattern so as all
- the argument of the constructors of the inductive type are
- introduced (for instance, the list of patterns {\tt [$\;$|$\;$] H}
- applied on goal {\tt forall x:nat, x=0 -> 0=x} behaves the same as
- the list of patterns {\tt [$\,$|$\,$?$\,$] H});
-\item introduction over a conjunction of patterns {\tt ($p_1$, \ldots,
- $p_n$)} expects the goal to be a product over an inductive type $I$ with a
- single constructor that itself has at least $n$ arguments: it
- performs a case analysis over the hypothesis, as {\tt destruct}
- would, and applies the patterns $p_1$~\ldots~$p_n$ to the arguments
- of the constructor of $I$ (observe that {\tt ($p_1$, {\ldots},
- $p_n$)} is an alternative notation for {\tt [$p_1$ {\ldots}
- $p_n$]});
-\item introduction via {\tt ( $p_1$ \& \ldots \& $p_n$ )}
- is a shortcut for introduction via
- {\tt ($p_1$,(\ldots,(\dots,$p_n$)\ldots))}; it expects the
- hypothesis to be a sequence of right-associative binary inductive
- constructors such as {\tt conj} or {\tt ex\_intro}; for instance, an
- hypothesis with type {\tt A\verb|/\|exists x, B\verb|/\|C\verb|/\|D} can be
- introduced via pattern {\tt (a \& x \& b \& c \& d)};
-\item introduction on the wildcard depends on whether the product is
- dependent or not: in the non dependent case, it erases the
- corresponding hypothesis (i.e. it behaves as an {\tt intro} followed
- by a {\tt clear}, cf Section~\ref{clear}) while in the dependent
- case, it succeeds and erases the variable only if the wildcard is
- part of a more complex list of introduction patterns that also
- erases the hypotheses depending on this variable;
-\item introduction over {\tt ->} (respectively {\tt <-}) expects the
- hypothesis to be an equality and the right-hand-side (respectively
- the left-hand-side) is replaced by the left-hand-side (respectively
- the right-hand-side) in both the conclusion and the context of the goal;
- if moreover the term to substitute is a variable, the hypothesis is
- removed.
-\end{itemize}
-
-\Rem {\tt intros $p_1~\ldots~p_n$} is not equivalent to \texttt{intros
- $p_1$;\ldots; intros $p_n$} for the following reasons:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item A wildcard pattern never succeeds when applied isolated on a
- dependent product, while it succeeds as part of a list of
- introduction patterns if the hypotheses that depends on it are
- erased too.
-\item A disjunctive or conjunctive pattern followed by an introduction
- pattern forces the introduction in the context of all arguments of
- the constructors before applying the next pattern while a terminal
- disjunctive or conjunctive pattern does not. Here is an example
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Goal forall n:nat, n = 0 -> n = 0.
-intros [ | ] H.
-Show 2.
-Undo.
-intros [ | ]; intros H.
-Show 2.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\end{itemize}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Lemma intros_test : forall A B C:Prop, A \/ B /\ C -> (A -> C) -> C.
-intros A B C [a| [_ c]] f.
-apply (f a).
-exact c.
-Qed.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-%\subsection[\tt FixPoint \dots]{\tt FixPoint \dots\tacindex{Fixpoint}}
-%Not yet documented.
-
-\subsection{\tt double induction \ident$_1$ \ident$_2$}
-%\tacindex{double induction}}
-This tactic is deprecated and should be replaced by {\tt induction \ident$_1$; induction \ident$_2$} (or {\tt induction \ident$_1$; destruct \ident$_2$} depending on the exact needs).
-
-%% This tactic applies to any goal. If the variables {\ident$_1$} and
-%% {\ident$_2$} of the goal have an inductive type, then this tactic
-%% performs double induction on these variables. For instance, if the
-%% current goal is \verb+forall n m:nat, P n m+ then, {\tt double induction n
-%% m} yields the four cases with their respective inductive hypotheses.
-
-%% In particular, for proving \verb+(P (S n) (S m))+, the generated induction
-%% hypotheses are \verb+(P (S n) m)+ and \verb+(m:nat)(P n m)+ (of the latter,
-%% \verb+(P n m)+ and \verb+(P n (S m))+ are derivable).
-
-%% \Rem When the induction hypothesis \verb+(P (S n) m)+ is not
-%% needed, {\tt induction \ident$_1$; destruct \ident$_2$} produces
-%% more concise subgoals.
-
-\begin{Variant}
-
-\item {\tt double induction \num$_1$ \num$_2$}
-
-This tactic is deprecated and should be replaced by {\tt induction
- \num$_1$; induction \num$_3$} where \num$_3$ is the result of
-\num$_2$-\num$_1$.
-
-%% This tactic applies to any goal. If the variables {\ident$_1$} and
-
-%% This applies double induction on the \num$_1^{th}$ and \num$_2^{th}$ {\it
-%% non dependent} premises of the goal. More generally, any combination of an
-%% {\ident} and a {\num} is valid.
-
-\end{Variant}
-
-\subsection{\tt dependent induction \ident
- \tacindex{dependent induction}
- \label{DepInduction}}
-
-The \emph{experimental} tactic \texttt{dependent induction} performs
-induction-inversion on an instantiated inductive predicate.
-One needs to first require the {\tt Coq.Program.Equality} module to use
-this tactic. The tactic is based on the BasicElim tactic by Conor
-McBride \cite{DBLP:conf/types/McBride00} and the work of Cristina Cornes
-around inversion \cite{DBLP:conf/types/CornesT95}. From an instantiated
-inductive predicate and a goal it generates an equivalent goal where the
-hypothesis has been generalized over its indexes which are then
-constrained by equalities to be the right instances. This permits to
-state lemmas without resorting to manually adding these equalities and
-still get enough information in the proofs.
-A simple example is the following:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Lemma le_minus : forall n:nat, n < 1 -> n = 0.
-intros n H ; induction H.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-Here we didn't get any information on the indexes to help fulfill this
-proof. The problem is that when we use the \texttt{induction} tactic
-we lose information on the hypothesis instance, notably that the second
-argument is \texttt{1} here. Dependent induction solves this problem by
-adding the corresponding equality to the context.
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Require Import Coq.Program.Equality.
-Lemma le_minus : forall n:nat, n < 1 -> n = 0.
-intros n H ; dependent induction H.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-The subgoal is cleaned up as the tactic tries to automatically
-simplify the subgoals with respect to the generated equalities.
-In this enriched context it becomes possible to solve this subgoal.
-\begin{coq_example}
-reflexivity.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-Now we are in a contradictory context and the proof can be solved.
-\begin{coq_example}
-inversion H.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-This technique works with any inductive predicate.
-In fact, the \texttt{dependent induction} tactic is just a wrapper around
-the \texttt{induction} tactic. One can make its own variant by just
-writing a new tactic based on the definition found in
-\texttt{Coq.Program.Equality}. Common useful variants are the following,
-defined in the same file:
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt dependent induction {\ident} generalizing {\ident$_1$} \dots
- {\ident$_n$}}\tacindex{dependent induction \dots\ generalizing}
-
- Does dependent induction on the hypothesis {\ident} but first
- generalizes the goal by the given variables so that they are
- universally quantified in the goal. This is generally what one wants
- to do with the variables that are inside some constructors in the
- induction hypothesis. The other ones need not be further generalized.
-
-\item {\tt dependent destruction {\ident}}\tacindex{dependent destruction}
-
- Does the generalization of the instance {\ident} but uses {\tt destruct}
- instead of {\tt induction} on the generalized hypothesis. This gives
- results equivalent to {\tt inversion} or {\tt dependent inversion} if
- the hypothesis is dependent.
-\end{Variants}
-
-A larger example of dependent induction and an explanation of the
-underlying technique are developed in section~\ref{dependent-induction-example}.
-
-\subsection{\tt decompose [ {\qualid$_1$} \dots\ {\qualid$_n$} ] \term
-\label{decompose}
-\tacindex{decompose}}
-
-This tactic allows to recursively decompose a
-complex proposition in order to obtain atomic ones.
-Example:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Lemma ex1 : forall A B C:Prop, A /\ B /\ C \/ B /\ C \/ C /\ A -> C.
-intros A B C H; decompose [and or] H; assumption.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Qed.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-{\tt decompose} does not work on right-hand sides of implications or products.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt decompose sum \term}\tacindex{decompose sum}
- This decomposes sum types (like \texttt{or}).
-\item {\tt decompose record \term}\tacindex{decompose record}
- This decomposes record types (inductive types with one constructor,
- like \texttt{and} and \texttt{exists} and those defined with the
- \texttt{Record} macro, see Section~\ref{Record}).
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-\subsection{\tt functional induction (\qualid\ \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$).
-\tacindex{functional induction}
-\label{FunInduction}}
-
-The \emph{experimental} tactic \texttt{functional induction} performs
-case analysis and induction following the definition of a function. It
-makes use of a principle generated by \texttt{Function}
-(see Section~\ref{Function}) or \texttt{Functional Scheme}
-(see Section~\ref{FunScheme}).
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Functional Scheme minus_ind := Induction for minus Sort Prop.
-
-Lemma le_minus : forall n m:nat, (n - m <= n).
-intros n m.
-functional induction (minus n m); simpl; auto.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Qed.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-\Rem \texttt{(\qualid\ \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$)} must be a correct
-full application of \qualid. In particular, the rules for implicit
-arguments are the same as usual. For example use \texttt{@\qualid} if
-you want to write implicit arguments explicitly.
-
-\Rem Parenthesis over \qualid \dots \term$_n$ are mandatory.
-
-\Rem \texttt{functional induction (f x1 x2 x3)} is actually a wrapper
-for \texttt{induction x1 x2 x3 (f x1 x2 x3) using \qualid} followed by
-a cleaning phase, where $\qualid$ is the induction principle
-registered for $f$ (by the \texttt{Function} (see Section~\ref{Function})
-or \texttt{Functional Scheme} (see Section~\ref{FunScheme}) command)
-corresponding to the sort of the goal. Therefore \texttt{functional
- induction} may fail if the induction scheme (\texttt{\qualid}) is
-not defined. See also Section~\ref{Function} for the function terms
-accepted by \texttt{Function}.
-
-\Rem There is a difference between obtaining an induction scheme for a
-function by using \texttt{Function} (see Section~\ref{Function}) and by
-using \texttt{Functional Scheme} after a normal definition using
-\texttt{Fixpoint} or \texttt{Definition}. See \ref{Function} for
-details.
-
-\SeeAlso{\ref{Function},\ref{FunScheme},\ref{FunScheme-examples},
- \ref{sec:functional-inversion}}
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Cannot find induction information on \qualid}
-
- ~
-
-\item \errindex{Not the right number of induction arguments}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt functional induction (\qualid\ \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$)
- using \term$_{m+1}$ with {\term$_{n+1}$} \dots {\term$_m$}}
-
- Similar to \texttt{Induction} and \texttt{elim}
- (see Section~\ref{Tac-induction}), allows to give explicitly the
- induction principle and the values of dependent premises of the
- elimination scheme, including \emph{predicates} for mutual induction
- when {\qualid} is part of a mutually recursive definition.
-
-\item {\tt functional induction (\qualid\ \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$)
- using \term$_{m+1}$ with {\vref$_1$} := {\term$_{n+1}$} \dots\
- {\vref$_m$} := {\term$_n$}}
-
- Similar to \texttt{induction} and \texttt{elim}
- (see Section~\ref{Tac-induction}).
-
-\item All previous variants can be extended by the usual \texttt{as
- \intropattern} construction, similar for example to
- \texttt{induction} and \texttt{elim} (see Section~\ref{Tac-induction}).
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-
-\section{Equality}
-
-These tactics use the equality {\tt eq:forall A:Type, A->A->Prop}
-defined in file {\tt Logic.v} (see Section~\ref{Equality}). The
-notation for {\tt eq}~$T~t~u$ is simply {\tt $t$=$u$} dropping the
-implicit type of $t$ and $u$.
-
-\subsection{\tt rewrite \term
-\label{rewrite}
-\tacindex{rewrite}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. The type of {\term}
-must have the form
-
-\texttt{forall (x$_1$:A$_1$) \dots\ (x$_n$:A$_n$)}\texttt{eq} \term$_1$ \term$_2$.
-
-\noindent where \texttt{eq} is the Leibniz equality or a registered
-setoid equality.
-
-\noindent Then {\tt rewrite \term} finds the first subterm matching
-\term$_1$ in the goal, resulting in instances \term$_1'$ and \term$_2'$
-and then replaces every occurrence of \term$_1'$ by \term$_2'$.
-Hence, some of the variables x$_i$ are
-solved by unification, and some of the types \texttt{A}$_1$, \dots,
-\texttt{A}$_n$ become new subgoals.
-
-% \Rem In case the type of
-% \term$_1$ contains occurrences of variables bound in the
-% type of \term, the tactic tries first to find a subterm of the goal
-% which matches this term in order to find a closed instance \term$'_1$
-% of \term$_1$, and then all instances of \term$'_1$ will be replaced.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{The term provided does not end with an equation}
-
-\item \errindex{Tactic generated a subgoal identical to the original goal}\\
-This happens if \term$_1$ does not occur in the goal.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt rewrite -> {\term}}\tacindex{rewrite ->}\\
- Is equivalent to {\tt rewrite \term}
-
-\item {\tt rewrite <- {\term}}\tacindex{rewrite <-}\\
- Uses the equality \term$_1${\tt=}\term$_2$ from right to left
-
-\item {\tt rewrite {\term} in \textit{clause}}
- \tacindex{rewrite \dots\ in}\\
- Analogous to {\tt rewrite {\term}} but rewriting is done following
- \textit{clause} (similarly to \ref{Conversion-tactics}). For
- instance:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item \texttt{rewrite H in H1} will rewrite \texttt{H} in the hypothesis
- \texttt{H1} instead of the current goal.
- \item \texttt{rewrite H in H1 at 1, H2 at - 2 |- *} means \texttt{rewrite H; rewrite H in H1 at 1;
- rewrite H in H2 at - 2}. In particular a failure will happen if any of
- these three simpler tactics fails.
- \item \texttt{rewrite H in * |- } will do \texttt{rewrite H in
- H$_i$} for all hypothesis \texttt{H$_i$ <> H}. A success will happen
- as soon as at least one of these simpler tactics succeeds.
- \item \texttt{rewrite H in *} is a combination of \texttt{rewrite H}
- and \texttt{rewrite H in * |-} that succeeds if at
- least one of these two tactics succeeds.
- \end{itemize}
- Orientation {\tt ->} or {\tt <-} can be
- inserted before the term to rewrite.
-
-\item {\tt rewrite {\term} at {\occlist}}
- \tacindex{rewrite \dots\ at}
-
- Rewrite only the given occurrences of \term$_1'$. Occurrences are
- specified from left to right as for \texttt{pattern} (\S
- \ref{pattern}). The rewrite is always performed using setoid
- rewriting, even for Leibniz's equality, so one has to
- \texttt{Import Setoid} to use this variant.
-
-\item {\tt rewrite {\term} by {\tac}}
- \tacindex{rewrite \dots\ by}
-
- Use {\tac} to completely solve the side-conditions arising from the
- rewrite.
-
-\item {\tt rewrite $\term_1$, \ldots, $\term_n$}\\
- Is equivalent to the $n$ successive tactics {\tt rewrite $\term_1$}
- up to {\tt rewrite $\term_n$}, each one working on the first subgoal
- generated by the previous one.
- Orientation {\tt ->} or {\tt <-} can be
- inserted before each term to rewrite. One unique \textit{clause}
- can be added at the end after the keyword {\tt in}; it will
- then affect all rewrite operations.
-
-\item In all forms of {\tt rewrite} described above, a term to rewrite
- can be immediately prefixed by one of the following modifiers:
- \begin{itemize}
- \item {\tt ?} : the tactic {\tt rewrite ?$\term$} performs the
- rewrite of $\term$ as many times as possible (perhaps zero time).
- This form never fails.
- \item {\tt $n$?} : works similarly, except that it will do at most
- $n$ rewrites.
- \item {\tt !} : works as {\tt ?}, except that at least one rewrite
- should succeed, otherwise the tactic fails.
- \item {\tt $n$!} (or simply {\tt $n$}) : precisely $n$ rewrites
- of $\term$ will be done, leading to failure if these $n$ rewrites are not possible.
- \end{itemize}
-
-\item {\tt erewrite {\term}\tacindex{erewrite}}
-
-This tactic works as {\tt rewrite {\term}} but turning unresolved
-bindings into existential variables, if any, instead of failing. It has
-the same variants as {\tt rewrite} has.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-\subsection{\tt cutrewrite -> \term$_1$ = \term$_2$
-\label{cutrewrite}
-\tacindex{cutrewrite}}
-
-This tactic acts like {\tt replace {\term$_1$} with {\term$_2$}}
-(see below).
-
-\subsection{\tt replace {\term$_1$} with {\term$_2$}
-\label{tactic:replace}
-\tacindex{replace \dots\ with}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It replaces all free occurrences of
-{\term$_1$} in the current goal with {\term$_2$} and generates the
-equality {\term$_2$}{\tt =}{\term$_1$} as a subgoal. This equality is
-automatically solved if it occurs amongst the assumption, or if its
-symmetric form occurs. It is equivalent to {\tt cut
-\term$_2$=\term$_1$; [intro H{\sl n}; rewrite <- H{\sl n}; clear H{\sl
-n}| assumption || symmetry; try assumption]}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{terms do not have convertible types}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt replace {\term$_1$} with {\term$_2$} by \tac}\\ This acts
- as {\tt replace {\term$_1$} with {\term$_2$}} but applies {\tt \tac}
- to solve the generated subgoal {\tt \term$_2$=\term$_1$}.
-\item {\tt replace {\term}}\\ Replace {\term} with {\term'} using the
- first assumption whose type has the form {\tt \term=\term'} or {\tt
- \term'=\term}
-\item {\tt replace -> {\term}}\\ Replace {\term} with {\term'} using the
- first assumption whose type has the form {\tt \term=\term'}
-\item {\tt replace <- {\term}}\\ Replace {\term} with {\term'} using the
- first assumption whose type has the form {\tt \term'=\term}
-\item {\tt replace {\term$_1$} with {\term$_2$} \textit{clause} }\\
- {\tt replace {\term$_1$} with {\term$_2$} \textit{clause} by \tac }\\
- {\tt replace {\term} \textit{clause}}\\
- {\tt replace -> {\term} \textit{clause}}\\
- {\tt replace <- {\term} \textit{clause}}\\
- Act as before but the replacements take place in
- \textit{clause}~(see Section~\ref{Conversion-tactics}) and not only
- in the conclusion of the goal.\\
- The \textit{clause} argument must not contain any \texttt{type of} nor \texttt{value of}.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt reflexivity
-\label{reflexivity}
-\tacindex{reflexivity}}
-
-This tactic applies to a goal which has the form {\tt t=u}. It checks
-that {\tt t} and {\tt u} are convertible and then solves the goal.
-It is equivalent to {\tt apply refl\_equal}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{The conclusion is not a substitutive equation}
-\item \errindex{Impossible to unify \dots\ with \dots.}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{\tt symmetry
-\tacindex{symmetry}
-\tacindex{symmetry in}}
-This tactic applies to a goal which has the form {\tt t=u} and changes it
-into {\tt u=t}.
-
-\variant {\tt symmetry in {\ident}}\\
-If the statement of the hypothesis {\ident} has the form {\tt t=u},
-the tactic changes it to {\tt u=t}.
-
-\subsection{\tt transitivity \term
-\tacindex{transitivity}}
-This tactic applies to a goal which has the form {\tt t=u}
-and transforms it into the two subgoals
-{\tt t={\term}} and {\tt {\term}=u}.
-
-\subsection{\tt subst {\ident}
-\tacindex{subst}}
-
-This tactic applies to a goal which has \ident\ in its context and
-(at least) one hypothesis, say {\tt H}, of type {\tt
- \ident=t} or {\tt t=\ident}. Then it replaces
-\ident\ by {\tt t} everywhere in the goal (in the hypotheses
-and in the conclusion) and clears \ident\ and {\tt H} from the context.
-
-\Rem
-When several hypotheses have the form {\tt \ident=t} or {\tt
- t=\ident}, the first one is used.
-
-\begin{Variants}
- \item {\tt subst \ident$_1$ \dots \ident$_n$} \\
- Is equivalent to {\tt subst \ident$_1$; \dots; subst \ident$_n$}.
- \item {\tt subst} \\
- Applies {\tt subst} repeatedly to all identifiers from the context
- for which an equality exists.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection[{\tt stepl {\term}}]{{\tt stepl {\term}}\tacindex{stepl}}
-
-This tactic is for chaining rewriting steps. It assumes a goal of the
-form ``$R$ {\term}$_1$ {\term}$_2$'' where $R$ is a binary relation
-and relies on a database of lemmas of the form {\tt forall} $x$ $y$
-$z$, $R$ $x$ $y$ {\tt ->} $eq$ $x$ $z$ {\tt ->} $R$ $z$ $y$ where $eq$
-is typically a setoid equality. The application of {\tt stepl {\term}}
-then replaces the goal by ``$R$ {\term} {\term}$_2$'' and adds a new
-goal stating ``$eq$ {\term} {\term}$_1$''.
-
-Lemmas are added to the database using the command
-\comindex{Declare Left Step}
-\begin{quote}
-{\tt Declare Left Step {\term}.}
-\end{quote}
-
-The tactic is especially useful for parametric setoids which are not
-accepted as regular setoids for {\tt rewrite} and {\tt
- setoid\_replace} (see Chapter~\ref{setoid_replace}).
-
-\tacindex{stepr}
-\comindex{Declare Right Step}
-\begin{Variants}
-\item{\tt stepl {\term} by {\tac}}\\
-This applies {\tt stepl {\term}} then applies {\tac} to the second goal.
-
-\item{\tt stepr {\term}}\\
- {\tt stepr {\term} by {\tac}}\\
-This behaves as {\tt stepl} but on the right-hand-side of the binary relation.
-Lemmas are expected to be of the form
-``{\tt forall} $x$ $y$
-$z$, $R$ $x$ $y$ {\tt ->} $eq$ $y$ $z$ {\tt ->} $R$ $x$ $z$''
-and are registered using the command
-\begin{quote}
-{\tt Declare Right Step {\term}.}
-\end{quote}
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-\subsection{\tt f\_equal
-\label{f-equal}
-\tacindex{f\_equal}}
-
-This tactic applies to a goal of the form $f\ a_1\ \ldots\ a_n = f'\
-a'_1\ \ldots\ a'_n$. Using {\tt f\_equal} on such a goal leads to
-subgoals $f=f'$ and $a_1=a'_1$ and so on up to $a_n=a'_n$. Amongst
-these subgoals, the simple ones (e.g. provable by
-reflexivity or congruence) are automatically solved by {\tt f\_equal}.
-
-
-\section{Equality and inductive sets}
-
-We describe in this section some special purpose tactics dealing with
-equality and inductive sets or types. These tactics use the equality
-{\tt eq:forall (A:Type), A->A->Prop}, simply written with the
-infix symbol {\tt =}.
-
-\subsection{\tt decide equality
-\label{decideequality}
-\tacindex{decide equality}}
-
-This tactic solves a goal of the form
-{\tt forall $x$ $y$:$R$, \{$x$=$y$\}+\{\verb|~|$x$=$y$\}}, where $R$
-is an inductive type such that its constructors do not take proofs or
-functions as arguments, nor objects in dependent types.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt decide equality {\term}$_1$ {\term}$_2$ }.\\
- Solves a goal of the form {\tt \{}\term$_1${\tt =}\term$_2${\tt
-\}+\{\verb|~|}\term$_1${\tt =}\term$_2${\tt \}}.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt compare \term$_1$ \term$_2$
-\tacindex{compare}}
-
-This tactic compares two given objects \term$_1$ and \term$_2$
-of an inductive datatype. If $G$ is the current goal, it leaves the sub-goals
-\term$_1${\tt =}\term$_2$ {\tt ->} $G$ and \verb|~|\term$_1${\tt =}\term$_2$
-{\tt ->} $G$. The type
-of \term$_1$ and \term$_2$ must satisfy the same restrictions as in the tactic
-\texttt{decide equality}.
-
-\subsection{\tt discriminate {\term}
-\label{discriminate}
-\tacindex{discriminate}
-\tacindex{ediscriminate}}
-
-This tactic proves any goal from an assumption stating that two
-structurally different terms of an inductive set are equal. For
-example, from {\tt (S (S O))=(S O)} we can derive by absurdity any
-proposition.
-
-The argument {\term} is assumed to be a proof of a statement
-of conclusion {\tt{\term$_1$} = {\term$_2$}} with {\term$_1$} and
-{\term$_2$} being elements of an inductive set. To build the proof,
-the tactic traverses the normal forms\footnote{Reminder: opaque
- constants will not be expanded by $\delta$ reductions} of
-{\term$_1$} and {\term$_2$} looking for a couple of subterms {\tt u}
-and {\tt w} ({\tt u} subterm of the normal form of {\term$_1$} and
-{\tt w} subterm of the normal form of {\term$_2$}), placed at the same
-positions and whose head symbols are two different constructors. If
-such a couple of subterms exists, then the proof of the current goal
-is completed, otherwise the tactic fails.
-
-\Rem The syntax {\tt discriminate {\ident}} can be used to refer to a
-hypothesis quantified in the goal. In this case, the quantified
-hypothesis whose name is {\ident} is first introduced in the local
-context using \texttt{intros until \ident}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{No primitive equality found}
-\item \errindex{Not a discriminable equality}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{discriminate} \num
-
- This does the same thing as \texttt{intros until \num} followed by
- \texttt{discriminate \ident} where {\ident} is the identifier for
- the last introduced hypothesis.
-
-\item \texttt{discriminate} {\term} {\tt with} {\bindinglist}
-
- This does the same thing as \texttt{discriminate {\term}} but using
-the given bindings to instantiate parameters or hypotheses of {\term}.
-
-\item \texttt{ediscriminate} \num\\
- \texttt{ediscriminate} {\term} \zeroone{{\tt with} {\bindinglist}}
-
- This works the same as {\tt discriminate} but if the type of {\term},
- or the type of the hypothesis referred to by {\num}, has uninstantiated
- parameters, these parameters are left as existential variables.
-
-\item \texttt{discriminate}
-
- This behaves like {\tt discriminate {\ident}} if {\ident} is the
- name of an hypothesis to which {\tt discriminate} is applicable; if
- the current goal is of the form {\term$_1$} {\tt <>} {\term$_2$},
- this behaves as {\tt intro {\ident}; injection {\ident}}.
-
- \begin{ErrMsgs}
- \item \errindex{No discriminable equalities} \\
- occurs when the goal does not verify the expected preconditions.
- \end{ErrMsgs}
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt injection {\term}
-\label{injection}
-\tacindex{injection}
-\tacindex{einjection}}
-
-The {\tt injection} tactic is based on the fact that constructors of
-inductive sets are injections. That means that if $c$ is a constructor
-of an inductive set, and if $(c~\vec{t_1})$ and $(c~\vec{t_2})$ are two
-terms that are equal then $~\vec{t_1}$ and $~\vec{t_2}$ are equal
-too.
-
-If {\term} is a proof of a statement of conclusion
- {\tt {\term$_1$} = {\term$_2$}},
-then {\tt injection} applies injectivity as deep as possible to
-derive the equality of all the subterms of {\term$_1$} and {\term$_2$}
-placed in the same positions. For example, from {\tt (S
- (S n))=(S (S (S m))} we may derive {\tt n=(S m)}. To use this
-tactic {\term$_1$} and {\term$_2$} should be elements of an inductive
-set and they should be neither explicitly equal, nor structurally
-different. We mean by this that, if {\tt n$_1$} and {\tt n$_2$} are
-their respective normal forms, then:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item {\tt n$_1$} and {\tt n$_2$} should not be syntactically equal,
-\item there must not exist any pair of subterms {\tt u} and {\tt w},
- {\tt u} subterm of {\tt n$_1$} and {\tt w} subterm of {\tt n$_2$} ,
- placed in the same positions and having different constructors as
- head symbols.
-\end{itemize}
-If these conditions are satisfied, then, the tactic derives the
-equality of all the subterms of {\term$_1$} and {\term$_2$} placed in
-the same positions and puts them as antecedents of the current goal.
-
-\Example Consider the following goal:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Inductive list : Set :=
- | nil : list
- | cons : nat -> list -> list.
-Variable P : list -> Prop.
-\end{coq_example*}
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Lemma ex :
- forall (l:list) (n:nat), P nil -> cons n l = cons 0 nil -> P l.
-intros l n H H0.
-\end{coq_eval}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Show.
-injection H0.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-Beware that \texttt{injection} yields always an equality in a sigma type
-whenever the injected object has a dependent type.
-
-\Rem There is a special case for dependent pairs. If we have a decidable
-equality over the type of the first argument, then it is safe to do
-the projection on the second one, and so {\tt injection} will work fine.
-To define such an equality, you have to use the {\tt Scheme} command
-(see \ref{Scheme}).
-
-\Rem If some quantified hypothesis of the goal is named {\ident}, then
-{\tt injection {\ident}} first introduces the hypothesis in the local
-context using \texttt{intros until \ident}.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Not a projectable equality but a discriminable one}
-\item \errindex{Nothing to do, it is an equality between convertible terms}
-\item \errindex{Not a primitive equality}
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{injection} \num{}
-
- This does the same thing as \texttt{intros until \num} followed by
-\texttt{injection \ident} where {\ident} is the identifier for the last
-introduced hypothesis.
-
-\item \texttt{injection} \term{} {\tt with} {\bindinglist}
-
- This does the same as \texttt{injection {\term}} but using
- the given bindings to instantiate parameters or hypotheses of {\term}.
-
-\item \texttt{einjection} \num\\
- \texttt{einjection} \term{} \zeroone{{\tt with} {\bindinglist}}
-
- This works the same as {\tt injection} but if the type of {\term},
- or the type of the hypothesis referred to by {\num}, has uninstantiated
- parameters, these parameters are left as existential variables.
-
-\item{\tt injection}
-
- If the current goal is of the form {\term$_1$} {\tt <>} {\term$_2$},
- this behaves as {\tt intro {\ident}; injection {\ident}}.
-
- \ErrMsg \errindex{goal does not satisfy the expected preconditions}
-
-\item \texttt{injection} \term{} \zeroone{{\tt with} {\bindinglist}} \texttt{as} \nelist{\intropattern}{}\\
-\texttt{injection} \num{} \texttt{as} {\intropattern} {\ldots} {\intropattern}\\
-\texttt{injection} \texttt{as} {\intropattern} {\ldots} {\intropattern}\\
-\texttt{einjection} \term{} \zeroone{{\tt with} {\bindinglist}} \texttt{as} \nelist{\intropattern}{}\\
-\texttt{einjection} \num{} \texttt{as} {\intropattern} {\ldots} {\intropattern}\\
-\texttt{einjection} \texttt{as} {\intropattern} {\ldots} {\intropattern}\\
-\tacindex{injection \ldots{} as}
-
-These variants apply \texttt{intros} \nelist{\intropattern}{} after
-the call to \texttt{injection} or \texttt{einjection}.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt simplify\_eq {\term}
-\tacindex{simplify\_eq}
-\tacindex{esimplify\_eq}
-\label{simplify-eq}}
-
-Let {\term} be the proof of a statement of conclusion {\tt
- {\term$_1$}={\term$_2$}}. If {\term$_1$} and
-{\term$_2$} are structurally different (in the sense described for the
-tactic {\tt discriminate}), then the tactic {\tt simplify\_eq} behaves as {\tt
- discriminate {\term}}, otherwise it behaves as {\tt injection
- {\term}}.
-
-\Rem If some quantified hypothesis of the goal is named {\ident}, then
-{\tt simplify\_eq {\ident}} first introduces the hypothesis in the local
-context using \texttt{intros until \ident}.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{simplify\_eq} \num
-
- This does the same thing as \texttt{intros until \num} then
-\texttt{simplify\_eq \ident} where {\ident} is the identifier for the last
-introduced hypothesis.
-
-\item \texttt{simplify\_eq} \term{} {\tt with} {\bindinglist}
-
- This does the same as \texttt{simplify\_eq {\term}} but using
- the given bindings to instantiate parameters or hypotheses of {\term}.
-
-\item \texttt{esimplify\_eq} \num\\
- \texttt{esimplify\_eq} \term{} \zeroone{{\tt with} {\bindinglist}}
-
- This works the same as {\tt simplify\_eq} but if the type of {\term},
- or the type of the hypothesis referred to by {\num}, has uninstantiated
- parameters, these parameters are left as existential variables.
-
-\item{\tt simplify\_eq}
-
-If the current goal has form $t_1\verb=<>=t_2$, it behaves as
-\texttt{intro {\ident}; simplify\_eq {\ident}}.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt dependent rewrite -> {\ident}
-\tacindex{dependent rewrite ->}
-\label{dependent-rewrite}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. If \ident\ has type
-\verb+(existT B a b)=(existT B a' b')+
-in the local context (i.e. each term of the
-equality has a sigma type $\{ a:A~ \&~(B~a)\}$) this tactic rewrites
-\verb+a+ into \verb+a'+ and \verb+b+ into \verb+b'+ in the current
-goal. This tactic works even if $B$ is also a sigma type. This kind
-of equalities between dependent pairs may be derived by the injection
-and inversion tactics.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item{\tt dependent rewrite <- {\ident}}
-\tacindex{dependent rewrite <-} \\
-Analogous to {\tt dependent rewrite ->} but uses the equality from
-right to left.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\section{Inversion
-\label{inversion}}
-
-\subsection{\tt inversion {\ident}
-\tacindex{inversion}}
-
-Let the type of \ident~ in the local context be $(I~\vec{t})$,
-where $I$ is a (co)inductive predicate. Then,
-\texttt{inversion} applied to \ident~ derives for each possible
-constructor $c_i$ of $(I~\vec{t})$, {\bf all} the necessary
-conditions that should hold for the instance $(I~\vec{t})$ to be
-proved by $c_i$.
-
-\Rem If {\ident} does not denote a hypothesis in the local context
-but refers to a hypothesis quantified in the goal, then the
-latter is first introduced in the local context using
-\texttt{intros until \ident}.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{inversion} \num
-
- This does the same thing as \texttt{intros until \num} then
- \texttt{inversion \ident} where {\ident} is the identifier for the
- last introduced hypothesis.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion\_clear} \texttt{inversion\_clear} \ident
-
- This behaves as \texttt{inversion} and then erases \ident~ from the
- context.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion \dots\ as} \texttt{inversion} {\ident} \texttt{as} {\intropattern}
-
- This behaves as \texttt{inversion} but using names in
- {\intropattern} for naming hypotheses. The {\intropattern} must have
- the form {\tt [} $p_{11}$ \ldots $p_{1n_1}$ {\tt |} {\ldots} {\tt |}
- $p_{m1}$ \ldots $p_{mn_m}$ {\tt ]} with $m$ being the number of
- constructors of the type of {\ident}. Be careful that the list must
- be of length $m$ even if {\tt inversion} discards some cases (which
- is precisely one of its roles): for the discarded cases, just use an
- empty list (i.e. $n_i=0$).
-
- The arguments of the $i^{th}$ constructor and the
- equalities that {\tt inversion} introduces in the context of the
- goal corresponding to the $i^{th}$ constructor, if it exists, get
- their names from the list $p_{i1}$ \ldots $p_{in_i}$ in order. If
- there are not enough names, {\tt induction} invents names for the
- remaining variables to introduce. In case an equation splits into
- several equations (because {\tt inversion} applies {\tt injection}
- on the equalities it generates), the corresponding name $p_{ij}$ in
- the list must be replaced by a sublist of the form {\tt [$p_{ij1}$
- \ldots $p_{ijq}$]} (or, equivalently, {\tt ($p_{ij1}$,
- \ldots, $p_{ijq}$)}) where $q$ is the number of subequalities
- obtained from splitting the original equation. Here is an example.
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Require Import List.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Inductive contains0 : list nat -> Prop :=
- | in_hd : forall l, contains0 (0 :: l)
- | in_tl : forall l b, contains0 l -> contains0 (b :: l).
-Goal forall l:list nat, contains0 (1 :: l) -> contains0 l.
-intros l H; inversion H as [ | l' p Hl' [Heqp Heql'] ].
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\item \texttt{inversion} {\num} {\tt as} {\intropattern}
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced by
- \texttt{inversion} {\num} in the context.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion\_cleardots\ as} \texttt{inversion\_clear}
- {\ident} {\tt as} {\intropattern}
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced by
- \texttt{inversion\_clear} in the context.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion \dots\ in} \texttt{inversion } {\ident}
- \texttt{in} \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$
-
- Let \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$, be identifiers in the local context. This
- tactic behaves as generalizing \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$, and
- then performing \texttt{inversion}.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion \dots\ as \dots\ in} \texttt{inversion }
- {\ident} {\tt as} {\intropattern} \texttt{in} \ident$_1$ \dots\
- \ident$_n$
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced in the context by
- \texttt{inversion} {\ident} \texttt{in} \ident$_1$ \dots\
- \ident$_n$.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion\_clear \dots\ in} \texttt{inversion\_clear}
- {\ident} \texttt{in} \ident$_1$ \ldots \ident$_n$
-
- Let \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$, be identifiers in the local context. This
- tactic behaves as generalizing \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$, and
- then performing {\tt inversion\_clear}.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion\_clear \dots\ as \dots\ in}
- \texttt{inversion\_clear} {\ident} \texttt{as} {\intropattern}
- \texttt{in} \ident$_1$ \ldots \ident$_n$
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced in the context by
- \texttt{inversion\_clear} {\ident} \texttt{in} \ident$_1$ \ldots
- \ident$_n$.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion} \texttt{dependent inversion}
- {\ident}
-
- That must be used when \ident\ appears in the current goal. It acts
- like \texttt{inversion} and then substitutes \ident\ for the
- corresponding term in the goal.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion \dots\ as } \texttt{dependent
- inversion} {\ident} \texttt{as} {\intropattern}
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced in the context by
- \texttt{dependent inversion} {\ident}.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion\_clear} \texttt{dependent
- inversion\_clear} {\ident}
-
- Like \texttt{dependent inversion}, except that {\ident} is cleared
- from the local context.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion\_clear \dots\ as}
- \texttt{dependent inversion\_clear} {\ident}\texttt{as} {\intropattern}
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced in the context by
- \texttt{dependent inversion\_clear} {\ident}.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion \dots\ with} \texttt{dependent
- inversion } {\ident} \texttt{ with } \term
-
- This variant allows you to specify the generalization of the goal. It
- is useful when the system fails to generalize the goal automatically. If
- {\ident} has type $(I~\vec{t})$ and $I$ has type
- $forall (\vec{x}:\vec{T}), s$, then \term~ must be of type
- $I:forall (\vec{x}:\vec{T}), I~\vec{x}\to s'$ where $s'$ is the
- type of the goal.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion \dots\ as \dots\ with}
- \texttt{dependent inversion } {\ident} \texttt{as} {\intropattern}
- \texttt{ with } \term
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced in the context by
- \texttt{dependent inversion } {\ident} \texttt{ with } \term.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion\_clear \dots\ with}
- \texttt{dependent inversion\_clear } {\ident} \texttt{ with } \term
-
- Like \texttt{dependent inversion \dots\ with} but clears {\ident} from
- the local context.
-
-\item \tacindex{dependent inversion\_clear \dots\ as \dots\ with}
- \texttt{dependent inversion\_clear } {\ident} \texttt{as}
- {\intropattern} \texttt{ with } \term
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced in the context by
- \texttt{dependent inversion\_clear } {\ident} \texttt{ with } \term.
-
-\item \tacindex{simple inversion} \texttt{simple inversion} {\ident}
-
- It is a very primitive inversion tactic that derives all the necessary
- equalities but it does not simplify the constraints as
- \texttt{inversion} does.
-
-\item \tacindex{simple inversion \dots\ as} \texttt{simple inversion}
- {\ident} \texttt{as} {\intropattern}
-
- This allows to name the hypotheses introduced in the context by
- \texttt{simple inversion}.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion \dots\ using} \texttt{inversion} \ident
- \texttt{ using} \ident$'$
-
- Let {\ident} have type $(I~\vec{t})$ ($I$ an inductive
- predicate) in the local context, and \ident$'$ be a (dependent) inversion
- lemma. Then, this tactic refines the current goal with the specified
- lemma.
-
-\item \tacindex{inversion \dots\ using \dots\ in} \texttt{inversion}
- {\ident} \texttt{using} \ident$'$ \texttt{in} \ident$_1$\dots\ \ident$_n$
-
- This tactic behaves as generalizing \ident$_1$\dots\ \ident$_n$,
- then doing \texttt{inversion} {\ident} \texttt{using} \ident$'$.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\SeeAlso~\ref{inversion-examples} for detailed examples
-
-\subsection{\tt Derive Inversion {\ident} with
- ${\tt forall (}\vec{x}{\tt :}\vec{T}{\tt),} I~\vec{t}$ Sort \sort
-\label{Derive-Inversion}
-\comindex{Derive Inversion}}
-
-This command generates an inversion principle for the
-\texttt{inversion \dots\ using} tactic.
-Let $I$ be an inductive predicate and $\vec{x}$ the variables
-occurring in $\vec{t}$. This command generates and stocks the
-inversion lemma for the sort \sort~ corresponding to the instance
-$forall (\vec{x}:\vec{T}), I~\vec{t}$ with the name {\ident} in the {\bf
-global} environment. When applied it is equivalent to have inverted
-the instance with the tactic {\tt inversion}.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{Derive Inversion\_clear} {\ident} \texttt{with}
- \comindex{Derive Inversion\_clear}
- $forall (\vec{x}:\vec{T}), I~\vec{t}$ \texttt{Sort} \sort~ \\
- \index{Derive Inversion\_clear \dots\ with}
- When applied it is equivalent to having
- inverted the instance with the tactic \texttt{inversion}
- replaced by the tactic \texttt{inversion\_clear}.
-\item \texttt{Derive Dependent Inversion} {\ident} \texttt{with}
- $forall (\vec{x}:\vec{T}), I~\vec{t}$ \texttt{Sort} \sort~\\
- \comindex{Derive Dependent Inversion}
- When applied it is equivalent to having
- inverted the instance with the tactic \texttt{dependent inversion}.
-\item \texttt{Derive Dependent Inversion\_clear} {\ident} \texttt{with}
- $forall (\vec{x}:\vec{T}), I~\vec{t}$ \texttt{Sort} \sort~\\
- \comindex{Derive Dependent Inversion\_clear}
- When applied it is equivalent to having
- inverted the instance with the tactic \texttt{dependent inversion\_clear}.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\SeeAlso \ref{inversion-examples} for examples
-
-
-
-\subsection[\tt functional inversion \ident]{\tt functional inversion \ident\label{sec:functional-inversion}}
-
-\texttt{functional inversion} is a \emph{highly} experimental tactic
-which performs inversion on hypothesis \ident\ of the form
-\texttt{\qualid\ \term$_1$\dots\term$_n$\ = \term} or \texttt{\term\ =
- \qualid\ \term$_1$\dots\term$_n$} where \qualid\ must have been
-defined using \texttt{Function} (see Section~\ref{Function}).
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{Hypothesis {\ident} must contain at least one Function}
-\item \errindex{Cannot find inversion information for hypothesis \ident}
- This error may be raised when some inversion lemma failed to be
- generated by Function.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt functional inversion \num}
-
- This does the same thing as \texttt{intros until \num} then
- \texttt{functional inversion \ident} where {\ident} is the
- identifier for the last introduced hypothesis.
-\item {\tt functional inversion \ident\ \qualid}\\
- {\tt functional inversion \num\ \qualid}
-
- In case the hypothesis {\ident} (or {\num}) has a type of the form
- \texttt{\qualid$_1$\ \term$_1$\dots\term$_n$\ =\ \qualid$_2$\
- \term$_{n+1}$\dots\term$_{n+m}$} where \qualid$_1$ and \qualid$_2$
- are valid candidates to functional inversion, this variant allows to
- choose which must be inverted.
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-
-\subsection{\tt quote \ident
-\tacindex{quote}
-\index{2-level approach}}
-
-This kind of inversion has nothing to do with the tactic
-\texttt{inversion} above. This tactic does \texttt{change (\ident\
- t)}, where \texttt{t} is a term built in order to ensure the
-convertibility. In other words, it does inversion of the function
-\ident. This function must be a fixpoint on a simple recursive
-datatype: see~\ref{quote-examples} for the full details.
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
-\item \errindex{quote: not a simple fixpoint}\\
- Happens when \texttt{quote} is not able to perform inversion properly.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{quote {\ident} [ \ident$_1$ \dots \ident$_n$ ]}\\
- All terms that are built only with \ident$_1$ \dots \ident$_n$ will be
- considered by \texttt{quote} as constants rather than variables.
-\end{Variants}
-
-% En attente d'un moyen de valoriser les fichiers de demos
-% \SeeAlso file \texttt{theories/DEMOS/DemoQuote.v} in the distribution
-
-\section[Classical tactics]{Classical tactics\label{ClassicalTactics}}
-
-In order to ease the proving process, when the {\tt Classical} module is loaded. A few more tactics are available. Make sure to load the module using the \texttt{Require Import} command.
-
-\subsection{{\tt classical\_left, classical\_right} \tacindex{classical\_left} \tacindex{classical\_right}}
-
-The tactics \texttt{classical\_left} and \texttt{classical\_right} are the analog of the \texttt{left} and \texttt{right} but using classical logic. They can only be used for disjunctions.
-Use \texttt{classical\_left} to prove the left part of the disjunction with the assumption that the negation of right part holds.
-Use \texttt{classical\_right} to prove the right part of the disjunction with the assumption that the negation of left part holds.
-
-\section{Automatizing
-\label{Automatizing}}
-
-\subsection{\tt auto
-\label{auto}
-\tacindex{auto}}
-
-This tactic implements a Prolog-like resolution procedure to solve the
-current goal. It first tries to solve the goal using the {\tt
- assumption} tactic, then it reduces the goal to an atomic one using
-{\tt intros} and introducing the newly generated hypotheses as hints.
-Then it looks at the list of tactics associated to the head symbol of
-the goal and tries to apply one of them (starting from the tactics
-with lower cost). This process is recursively applied to the generated
-subgoals.
-
-By default, \texttt{auto} only uses the hypotheses of the current goal and the
-hints of the database named {\tt core}.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt auto \num}
-
- Forces the search depth to be \num. The maximal search depth is 5 by
- default.
-
-\item {\tt auto with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$}
-
- Uses the hint databases $\ident_1$ \dots\ $\ident_n$ in addition to
- the database {\tt core}. See Section~\ref{Hints-databases} for the
- list of pre-defined databases and the way to create or extend a
- database. This option can be combined with the previous one.
-
-\item {\tt auto with *}
-
- Uses all existing hint databases, minus the special database
- {\tt v62}. See Section~\ref{Hints-databases}
-
-\item \texttt{auto using \nterm{lemma}$_1$ , \ldots , \nterm{lemma}$_n$}
-
- Uses \nterm{lemma}$_1$, \ldots, \nterm{lemma}$_n$ in addition to
- hints (can be combined with the \texttt{with \ident} option). If
- $lemma_i$ is an inductive type, it is the collection of its
- constructors which is added as hints.
-
-\item \texttt{auto using \nterm{lemma}$_1$ , \ldots , \nterm{lemma}$_n$ with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$}
-
- This combines the effects of the {\tt using} and {\tt with} options.
-
-\item {\tt trivial}\tacindex{trivial}
-
- This tactic is a restriction of {\tt auto} that is not recursive and
- tries only hints which cost 0. Typically it solves trivial
- equalities like $X=X$.
-
-\item \texttt{trivial with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$}
-
-\item \texttt{trivial with *}
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\Rem {\tt auto} either solves completely the goal or else leaves it
-intact. \texttt{auto} and \texttt{trivial} never fail.
-
-\SeeAlso Section~\ref{Hints-databases}
-
-\subsection{\tt eauto
-\tacindex{eauto}
-\label{eauto}}
-
-This tactic generalizes {\tt auto}. In contrast with
-the latter, {\tt eauto} uses unification of the goal
-against the hints rather than pattern-matching
-(in other words, it uses {\tt eapply} instead of
-{\tt apply}).
-As a consequence, {\tt eauto} can solve such a goal:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Hint Resolve ex_intro.
-Goal forall P:nat -> Prop, P 0 -> exists n, P n.
-eauto.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-Note that {\tt ex\_intro} should be declared as an
-hint.
-
-\SeeAlso Section~\ref{Hints-databases}
-
-\subsection{\tt autounfold with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$
-\tacindex{autounfold}
-\label{autounfold}}
-
-This tactic unfolds constants that were declared through a {\tt Hint
- Unfold} in the given databases.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt autounfold with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$ in \textit{clause}}
-
- Perform the unfolding in the given clause.
-
-\item {\tt autounfold with *}
-
- Uses the unfold hints declared in all the hint databases.
-\end{Variants}
-
-
-% EXISTE ENCORE ?
-%
-% \subsection{\tt Prolog [ \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$ ] \num}
-% \tacindex{Prolog}\label{Prolog}
-% This tactic, implemented by Chet Murthy, is based upon the concept of
-% existential variables of Gilles Dowek, stating that resolution is a
-% kind of unification. It tries to solve the current goal using the {\tt
-% Assumption} tactic, the {\tt intro} tactic, and applying hypotheses
-% of the local context and terms of the given list {\tt [ \term$_1$
-% \dots\ \term$_n$\ ]}. It is more powerful than {\tt auto} since it
-% may apply to any theorem, even those of the form {\tt (x:A)(P x) -> Q}
-% where {\tt x} does not appear free in {\tt Q}. The maximal search
-% depth is {\tt \num}.
-
-% \begin{ErrMsgs}
-% \item \errindex{Prolog failed}\\
-% The Prolog tactic was not able to prove the subgoal.
-% \end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{\tt tauto
-\tacindex{tauto}
-\label{tauto}}
-
-This tactic implements a decision procedure for intuitionistic propositional
-calculus based on the contraction-free sequent calculi LJT* of Roy Dyckhoff
-\cite{Dyc92}. Note that {\tt tauto} succeeds on any instance of an
-intuitionistic tautological proposition. {\tt tauto} unfolds negations
-and logical equivalence but does not unfold any other definition.
-
-The following goal can be proved by {\tt tauto} whereas {\tt auto}
-would fail:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Goal forall (x:nat) (P:nat -> Prop), x = 0 \/ P x -> x <> 0 -> P x.
- intros.
- tauto.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-Moreover, if it has nothing else to do, {\tt tauto} performs
-introductions. Therefore, the use of {\tt intros} in the previous
-proof is unnecessary. {\tt tauto} can for instance prove the
-following:
-\begin{coq_example}
-(* auto would fail *)
-Goal forall (A:Prop) (P:nat -> Prop),
- A \/ (forall x:nat, ~ A -> P x) -> forall x:nat, ~ A -> P x.
-
- tauto.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\Rem In contrast, {\tt tauto} cannot solve the following goal
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Goal forall (A:Prop) (P:nat -> Prop),
- A \/ (forall x:nat, ~ A -> P x) -> forall x:nat, ~ ~ (A \/ P x).
-\end{coq_example*}
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-because \verb=(forall x:nat, ~ A -> P x)= cannot be treated as atomic and an
-instantiation of \verb=x= is necessary.
-
-\subsection{\tt intuition {\tac}
-\tacindex{intuition}
-\label{intuition}}
-
-The tactic \texttt{intuition} takes advantage of the search-tree built
-by the decision procedure involved in the tactic {\tt tauto}. It uses
-this information to generate a set of subgoals equivalent to the
-original one (but simpler than it) and applies the tactic
-{\tac} to them \cite{Mun94}. If this tactic fails on some goals then
-{\tt intuition} fails. In fact, {\tt tauto} is simply {\tt intuition
- fail}.
-
-For instance, the tactic {\tt intuition auto} applied to the goal
-\begin{verbatim}
-(forall (x:nat), P x)/\B -> (forall (y:nat),P y)/\ P O \/B/\ P O
-\end{verbatim}
-internally replaces it by the equivalent one:
-\begin{verbatim}
-(forall (x:nat), P x), B |- P O
-\end{verbatim}
-and then uses {\tt auto} which completes the proof.
-
-Originally due to C{\'e}sar~Mu{\~n}oz, these tactics ({\tt tauto} and {\tt intuition})
-have been completely re-engineered by David~Delahaye using mainly the tactic
-language (see Chapter~\ref{TacticLanguage}). The code is now much shorter and
-a significant increase in performance has been noticed. The general behavior
-with respect to dependent types, unfolding and introductions has
-slightly changed to get clearer semantics. This may lead to some
-incompatibilities.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt intuition}\\
- Is equivalent to {\tt intuition auto with *}.
-\end{Variants}
-
-% En attente d'un moyen de valoriser les fichiers de demos
-%\SeeAlso file \texttt{contrib/Rocq/DEMOS/Demo\_tauto.v}
-
-
-\subsection{\tt rtauto
-\tacindex{rtauto}
-\label{rtauto}}
-
-The {\tt rtauto} tactic solves propositional tautologies similarly to what {\tt tauto} does. The main difference is that the proof term is built using a reflection scheme applied to a sequent calculus proof of the goal. The search procedure is also implemented using a different technique.
-
-Users should be aware that this difference may result in faster proof-search but slower proof-checking, and {\tt rtauto} might not solve goals that {\tt tauto} would be able to solve (e.g. goals involving universal quantifiers).
-
-\subsection{{\tt firstorder}
-\tacindex{firstorder}
-\label{firstorder}}
-
-The tactic \texttt{firstorder} is an {\it experimental} extension of
-\texttt{tauto} to
-first-order reasoning, written by Pierre Corbineau.
-It is not restricted to usual logical connectives but
-instead may reason about any first-order class inductive definition.
-
-\begin{Variants}
- \item {\tt firstorder {\tac}}
- \tacindex{firstorder {\tac}}
-
- Tries to solve the goal with {\tac} when no logical rule may apply.
-
- \item {\tt firstorder with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$ }
- \tacindex{firstorder with}
-
- Adds lemmas \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$ to the proof-search
- environment.
-
- \item {\tt firstorder using {\qualid}$_1$ , \dots\ , {\qualid}$_n$ }
- \tacindex{firstorder using}
-
- Adds lemmas in {\tt auto} hints bases {\qualid}$_1$ \dots\ {\qualid}$_n$
- to the proof-search environment. If {\qualid}$_i$ refers to an inductive
- type, it is the collection of its constructors which is added as hints.
-
-\item \texttt{firstorder using {\qualid}$_1$ , \dots\ , {\qualid}$_n$ with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$}
-
- This combines the effects of the {\tt using} and {\tt with} options.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-Proof-search is bounded by a depth parameter which can be set by typing the
-{\nobreak \tt Set Firstorder Depth $n$} \comindex{Set Firstorder Depth}
-vernacular command.
-
-%% \subsection{{\tt jp} {\em (Jprover)}
-%% \tacindex{jp}
-%% \label{jprover}}
-
-%% The tactic \texttt{jp}, due to Huang Guan-Shieng, is an experimental
-%% port of the {\em Jprover}\cite{SLKN01} semi-decision procedure for
-%% first-order intuitionistic logic implemented in {\em
-%% NuPRL}\cite{Kre02}.
-
-%% The tactic \texttt{jp}, due to Huang Guan-Shieng, is an {\it
-%% experimental} port of the {\em Jprover}\cite{SLKN01} semi-decision
-%% procedure for first-order intuitionistic logic implemented in {\em
-%% NuPRL}\cite{Kre02}.
-
-%% Search may optionnaly be bounded by a multiplicity parameter
-%% indicating how many (at most) copies of a formula may be used in
-%% the proof process, its absence may lead to non-termination of the tactic.
-
-%% %\begin{coq_eval}
-%% %Variable S:Set.
-%% %Variables P Q:S->Prop.
-%% %Variable f:S->S.
-%% %\end{coq_eval}
-
-%% %\begin{coq_example*}
-%% %Lemma example: (exists x |P x\/Q x)->(exists x |P x)\/(exists x |Q x).
-%% %jp.
-%% %Qed.
-
-%% %Lemma example2: (forall x ,P x->P (f x))->forall x,P x->P (f(f x)).
-%% %jp.
-%% %Qed.
-%% %\end{coq_example*}
-
-%% \begin{Variants}
-%% \item {\tt jp $n$}\\
-%% \tacindex{jp $n$}
-%% Tries the {\em Jprover} procedure with multiplicities up to $n$,
-%% starting from 1.
-%% \item {\tt jp}\\
-%% Tries the {\em Jprover} procedure without multiplicity bound,
-%% possibly running forever.
-%% \end{Variants}
-
-%% \begin{ErrMsgs}
-%% \item \errindex{multiplicity limit reached}\\
-%% The procedure tried all multiplicities below the limit and
-%% failed. Goal might be solved by increasing the multiplicity limit.
-%% \item \errindex{formula is not provable}\\
-%% The procedure determined that goal was not provable in
-%% intuitionistic first-order logic, no matter how big the
-%% multiplicity is.
-%% \end{ErrMsgs}
-
-
-% \subsection[\tt Linear]{\tt Linear\tacindex{Linear}\label{Linear}}
-% The tactic \texttt{Linear}, due to Jean-Christophe Filli{\^a}atre
-% \cite{Fil94}, implements a decision procedure for {\em Direct
-% Predicate Calculus}, that is first-order Gentzen's Sequent Calculus
-% without contraction rules \cite{KeWe84,BeKe92}. Intuitively, a
-% first-order goal is provable in Direct Predicate Calculus if it can be
-% proved using each hypothesis at most once.
-
-% Unlike the previous tactics, the \texttt{Linear} tactic does not belong
-% to the initial state of the system, and it must be loaded explicitly
-% with the command
-
-% \begin{coq_example*}
-% Require Linear.
-% \end{coq_example*}
-
-% For instance, assuming that \texttt{even} and \texttt{odd} are two
-% predicates on natural numbers, and \texttt{a} of type \texttt{nat}, the
-% tactic \texttt{Linear} solves the following goal
-
-% \begin{coq_eval}
-% Variables even,odd : nat -> Prop.
-% Variable a:nat.
-% \end{coq_eval}
-
-% \begin{coq_example*}
-% Lemma example : (even a)
-% -> ((x:nat)((even x)->(odd (S x))))
-% -> (EX y | (odd y)).
-% \end{coq_example*}
-
-% You can find examples of the use of \texttt{Linear} in
-% \texttt{theories/DEMOS/DemoLinear.v}.
-% \begin{coq_eval}
-% Abort.
-% \end{coq_eval}
-
-% \begin{Variants}
-% \item {\tt Linear with \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$}\\
-% \tacindex{Linear with}
-% Is equivalent to apply first {\tt generalize \ident$_1$ \dots
-% \ident$_n$} (see Section~\ref{generalize}) then the \texttt{Linear}
-% tactic. So one can use axioms, lemmas or hypotheses of the local
-% context with \texttt{Linear} in this way.
-% \end{Variants}
-
-% \begin{ErrMsgs}
-% \item \errindex{Not provable in Direct Predicate Calculus}
-% \item \errindex{Found $n$ classical proof(s) but no intuitionistic one}\\
-% The decision procedure looks actually for classical proofs of the
-% goals, and then checks that they are intuitionistic. In that case,
-% classical proofs have been found, which do not correspond to
-% intuitionistic ones.
-% \end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{\tt congruence
-\tacindex{congruence}
-\label{congruence}}
-
-The tactic {\tt congruence}, by Pierre Corbineau, implements the standard Nelson and Oppen
-congruence closure algorithm, which is a decision procedure for ground
-equalities with uninterpreted symbols. It also include the constructor theory
-(see \ref{injection} and \ref{discriminate}).
-If the goal is a non-quantified equality, {\tt congruence} tries to
-prove it with non-quantified equalities in the context. Otherwise it
-tries to infer a discriminable equality from those in the context. Alternatively, congruence tries to prove that a hypothesis is equal to the goal or to the negation of another hypothesis.
-
-{\tt congruence} is also able to take advantage of hypotheses stating quantified equalities, you have to provide a bound for the number of extra equalities generated that way. Please note that one of the members of the equality must contain all the quantified variables in order for {\tt congruence} to match against it.
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-Variable A:Set.
-Variables a b:A.
-Variable f:A->A.
-Variable g:A->A->A.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Theorem T:
- a=(f a) -> (g b (f a))=(f (f a)) -> (g a b)=(f (g b a)) -> (g a b)=a.
-intros.
-congruence.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-Variable A:Set.
-Variables a c d:A.
-Variable f:A->A*A.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Theorem inj : f = pair a -> Some (f c) = Some (f d) -> c=d.
-intros.
-congruence.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{Variants}
- \item {\tt congruence {\sl n}}\\
- Tries to add at most {\tt \sl n} instances of hypotheses stating quantified equalities to the problem in order to solve it. A bigger value of {\tt \sl n} does not make success slower, only failure. You might consider adding some lemmas as hypotheses using {\tt assert} in order for congruence to use them.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt congruence with \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$}\\
- Adds {\tt \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$} to the pool of terms used by
- {\tt congruence}. This helps in case you have partially applied
- constructors in your goal.
-\end{Variants}
-
-\begin{ErrMsgs}
- \item \errindex{I don't know how to handle dependent equality} \\
- The decision procedure managed to find a proof of the goal or of
- a discriminable equality but this proof couldn't be built in {\Coq}
- because of dependently-typed functions.
- \item \errindex{I couldn't solve goal} \\
- The decision procedure didn't find any way to solve the goal.
- \item \errindex{Goal is solvable by congruence but some arguments are missing. Try "congruence with \dots", replacing metavariables by arbitrary terms.} \\
- The decision procedure could solve the goal with the provision
- that additional arguments are supplied for some partially applied
- constructors. Any term of an appropriate type will allow the
- tactic to successfully solve the goal. Those additional arguments
- can be given to {\tt congruence} by filling in the holes in the
- terms given in the error message, using the {\tt with} variant
- described above.
-\end{ErrMsgs}
-
-\subsection{\tt omega
-\tacindex{omega}
-\label{omega}}
-
-The tactic \texttt{omega}, due to Pierre Cr{\'e}gut,
-is an automatic decision procedure for Presburger
-arithmetic. It solves quantifier-free
-formulas built with \verb|~|, \verb|\/|, \verb|/\|,
-\verb|->| on top of equalities, inequalities and disequalities on
-both the type \texttt{nat} of natural numbers and \texttt{Z} of binary
-integers. This tactic must be loaded by the command \texttt{Require Import
- Omega}. See the additional documentation about \texttt{omega}
-(see Chapter~\ref{OmegaChapter}).
-
-\subsection{{\tt ring} and {\tt ring\_simplify \term$_1$ \dots\ \term$_n$}
-\tacindex{ring}
-\tacindex{ring\_simplify}
-\comindex{Add Ring}}
-
-The {\tt ring} tactic solves equations upon polynomial expressions of
-a ring (or semi-ring) structure. It proceeds by normalizing both hand
-sides of the equation (w.r.t. associativity, commutativity and
-distributivity, constant propagation) and comparing syntactically the
-results.
-
-{\tt ring\_simplify} applies the normalization procedure described
-above to the terms given. The tactic then replaces all occurrences of
-the terms given in the conclusion of the goal by their normal
-forms. If no term is given, then the conclusion should be an equation
-and both hand sides are normalized.
-
-See Chapter~\ref{ring} for more information on the tactic and how to
-declare new ring structures.
-
-\subsection{{\tt field}, {\tt field\_simplify \term$_1$\dots\ \term$_n$}
- and {\tt field\_simplify\_eq}
-\tacindex{field}
-\tacindex{field\_simplify}
-\tacindex{field\_simplify\_eq}
-\comindex{Add Field}}
-
-The {\tt field} tactic is built on the same ideas as {\tt ring}: this
-is a reflexive tactic that solves or simplifies equations in a field
-structure. The main idea is to reduce a field expression (which is an
-extension of ring expressions with the inverse and division
-operations) to a fraction made of two polynomial expressions.
-
-Tactic {\tt field} is used to solve subgoals, whereas {\tt
- field\_simplify \term$_1$\dots\term$_n$} replaces the provided terms
-by their reduced fraction. {\tt field\_simplify\_eq} applies when the
-conclusion is an equation: it simplifies both hand sides and multiplies
-so as to cancel denominators. So it produces an equation without
-division nor inverse.
-
-All of these 3 tactics may generate a subgoal in order to prove that
-denominators are different from zero.
-
-See Chapter~\ref{ring} for more information on the tactic and how to
-declare new field structures.
-
-\Example
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Require Import Reals.
-Goal forall x y:R,
- (x * y > 0)%R ->
- (x * (1 / x + x / (x + y)))%R =
- ((- 1 / y) * y * (- x * (x / (x + y)) - 1))%R.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-intros; field.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\SeeAlso file {\tt plugins/setoid\_ring/RealField.v} for an example of instantiation,\\
-\phantom{\SeeAlso}theory {\tt theories/Reals} for many examples of use of {\tt
-field}.
-
-\subsection{\tt fourier
-\tacindex{fourier}}
-
-This tactic written by Lo{\"\i}c Pottier solves linear inequalities on
-real numbers using Fourier's method~\cite{Fourier}. This tactic must
-be loaded by {\tt Require Import Fourier}.
-
-\Example
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Require Import Reals.
-Require Import Fourier.
-Goal forall x y:R, (x < y)%R -> (y + 1 >= x - 1)%R.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-intros; fourier.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\subsection{\tt autorewrite with \ident$_1$ \dots \ident$_n$.
-\label{tactic:autorewrite}
-\tacindex{autorewrite}}
-
-This tactic \footnote{The behavior of this tactic has much changed compared to
-the versions available in the previous distributions (V6). This may cause
-significant changes in your theories to obtain the same result. As a drawback
-of the re-engineering of the code, this tactic has also been completely revised
-to get a very compact and readable version.} carries out rewritings according
-the rewriting rule bases {\tt \ident$_1$ \dots \ident$_n$}.
-
-Each rewriting rule of a base \ident$_i$ is applied to the main subgoal until
-it fails. Once all the rules have been processed, if the main subgoal has
-progressed (e.g., if it is distinct from the initial main goal) then the rules
-of this base are processed again. If the main subgoal has not progressed then
-the next base is processed. For the bases, the behavior is exactly similar to
-the processing of the rewriting rules.
-
-The rewriting rule bases are built with the {\tt Hint~Rewrite} vernacular
-command.
-
-\Warning{} This tactic may loop if you build non terminating rewriting systems.
-
-\begin{Variant}
-\item {\tt autorewrite with \ident$_1$ \dots \ident$_n$ using \tac}\\
-Performs, in the same way, all the rewritings of the bases {\tt \ident$_1$ $...$
-\ident$_n$} applying {\tt \tac} to the main subgoal after each rewriting step.
-
-\item \texttt{autorewrite with {\ident$_1$} \dots \ident$_n$ in {\qualid}}
-
- Performs all the rewritings in hypothesis {\qualid}.
-\item \texttt{autorewrite with {\ident$_1$} \dots \ident$_n$ in {\qualid} using \tac}
-
- Performs all the rewritings in hypothesis {\qualid} applying {\tt
- \tac} to the main subgoal after each rewriting step.
-
-\item \texttt{autorewrite with {\ident$_1$} \dots \ident$_n$ in \textit{clause}}
- Performs all the rewritings in the clause \textit{clause}. \\
- The \textit{clause} argument must not contain any \texttt{type of} nor \texttt{value of}.
-
-\end{Variant}
-
-\SeeAlso Section~\ref{HintRewrite} for feeding the database of lemmas used by {\tt autorewrite}.
-
-\SeeAlso Section~\ref{autorewrite-example} for examples showing the use of
-this tactic.
-
-% En attente d'un moyen de valoriser les fichiers de demos
-%\SeeAlso file \texttt{contrib/Rocq/DEMOS/Demo\_AutoRewrite.v}
-
-\section{Controlling automation}
-
-\subsection{The hints databases for {\tt auto} and {\tt eauto}
-\index{Hints databases}
-\label{Hints-databases}
-\comindex{Hint}}
-
-The hints for \texttt{auto} and \texttt{eauto} are stored in
-databases. Each database maps head symbols to a list of hints. One can
-use the command \texttt{Print Hint \ident} to display the hints
-associated to the head symbol \ident{} (see \ref{PrintHint}). Each
-hint has a cost that is an nonnegative integer, and an optional pattern.
-The hints with lower cost are tried first. A hint is tried by
-\texttt{auto} when the conclusion of the current goal
-matches its pattern or when it has no pattern.
-
-\subsubsection*{Creating Hint databases
- \label{CreateHintDb}\comindex{CreateHintDb}}
-
-One can optionally declare a hint database using the command
-\texttt{Create HintDb}. If a hint is added to an unknown database, it
-will be automatically created.
-
-\medskip
-\texttt{Create HintDb} {\ident} [\texttt{discriminated}]
-\medskip
-
-This command creates a new database named \ident.
-The database is implemented by a Discrimination Tree (DT) that serves as
-an index of all the lemmas. The DT can use transparency information to decide
-if a constant should be indexed or not (c.f. \ref{HintTransparency}),
-making the retrieval more efficient.
-The legacy implementation (the default one for new databases) uses the
-DT only on goals without existentials (i.e., auto goals), for non-Immediate
-hints and do not make use of transparency hints, putting more work on the
-unification that is run after retrieval (it keeps a list of the lemmas
-in case the DT is not used). The new implementation enabled by
-the {\tt discriminated} option makes use of DTs in all cases and takes
-transparency information into account. However, the order in which hints
-are retrieved from the DT may differ from the order in which they were
-inserted, making this implementation observationaly different from the
-legacy one.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item\texttt{Local Hint} \textsl{hint\_definition} \texttt{:}
- \ident$_1$ \ldots\ \ident$_n$
-
- This is used to declare a hint database that must not be exported to the other
- modules that require and import the current module. Inside a
- section, the option {\tt Local} is useless since hints do not
- survive anyway to the closure of sections.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-The general
-command to add a hint to some database \ident$_1$, \dots, \ident$_n$ is:
-\begin{tabbing}
- \texttt{Hint} \textsl{hint\_definition} \texttt{:} \ident$_1$ \ldots\ \ident$_n$
-\end{tabbing}
-where {\sl hint\_definition} is one of the following expressions:
-
-\begin{itemize}
-\item \texttt{Resolve} {\term}
- \comindex{Hint Resolve}
-
- This command adds {\tt apply {\term}} to the hint list
- with the head symbol of the type of \term. The cost of that hint is
- the number of subgoals generated by {\tt apply {\term}}.
-
- In case the inferred type of \term\ does not start with a product the
- tactic added in the hint list is {\tt exact {\term}}. In case this
- type can be reduced to a type starting with a product, the tactic {\tt
- apply {\term}} is also stored in the hints list.
-
- If the inferred type of \term\ contains a dependent
- quantification on a predicate, it is added to the hint list of {\tt
- eapply} instead of the hint list of {\tt apply}. In this case, a
- warning is printed since the hint is only used by the tactic {\tt
- eauto} (see \ref{eauto}). A typical example of a hint that is used
- only by \texttt{eauto} is a transitivity lemma.
-
- \begin{ErrMsgs}
- \item \errindex{Bound head variable}
-
- The head symbol of the type of {\term} is a bound variable such
- that this tactic cannot be associated to a constant.
-
- \item \term\ \errindex{cannot be used as a hint}
-
- The type of \term\ contains products over variables which do not
- appear in the conclusion. A typical example is a transitivity axiom.
- In that case the {\tt apply} tactic fails, and thus is useless.
-
- \end{ErrMsgs}
-
- \begin{Variants}
-
- \item \texttt{Resolve} {\term$_1$} \dots {\term$_m$}
-
- Adds each \texttt{Resolve} {\term$_i$}.
-
- \end{Variants}
-
-\item \texttt{Immediate {\term}}
-\comindex{Hint Immediate}
-
- This command adds {\tt apply {\term}; trivial} to the hint list
- associated with the head symbol of the type of {\ident} in the given
- database. This tactic will fail if all the subgoals generated by
- {\tt apply {\term}} are not solved immediately by the {\tt trivial}
- tactic (which only tries tactics with cost $0$).
-
- This command is useful for theorems such as the symmetry of equality
- or $n+1=m+1 \to n=m$ that we may like to introduce with a
- limited use in order to avoid useless proof-search.
-
- The cost of this tactic (which never generates subgoals) is always 1,
- so that it is not used by {\tt trivial} itself.
-
- \begin{ErrMsgs}
-
- \item \errindex{Bound head variable}
-
- \item \term\ \errindex{cannot be used as a hint}
-
- \end{ErrMsgs}
-
- \begin{Variants}
-
- \item \texttt{Immediate} {\term$_1$} \dots {\term$_m$}
-
- Adds each \texttt{Immediate} {\term$_i$}.
-
- \end{Variants}
-
-\item \texttt{Constructors} {\ident}
-\comindex{Hint Constructors}
-
- If {\ident} is an inductive type, this command adds all its
- constructors as hints of type \texttt{Resolve}. Then, when the
- conclusion of current goal has the form \texttt{({\ident} \dots)},
- \texttt{auto} will try to apply each constructor.
-
- \begin{ErrMsgs}
-
- \item {\ident} \errindex{is not an inductive type}
-
- \item {\ident} \errindex{not declared}
-
- \end{ErrMsgs}
-
- \begin{Variants}
-
- \item \texttt{Constructors} {\ident$_1$} \dots {\ident$_m$}
-
- Adds each \texttt{Constructors} {\ident$_i$}.
-
- \end{Variants}
-
-\item \texttt{Unfold} {\qualid}
-\comindex{Hint Unfold}
-
- This adds the tactic {\tt unfold {\qualid}} to the hint list that
- will only be used when the head constant of the goal is \ident. Its
- cost is 4.
-
- \begin{Variants}
-
- \item \texttt{Unfold} {\ident$_1$} \dots {\ident$_m$}
-
- Adds each \texttt{Unfold} {\ident$_i$}.
-
- \end{Variants}
-
-\item \texttt{Transparent}, \texttt{Opaque} {\qualid}
-\label{HintTransparency}
-\comindex{Hint Transparent}
-\comindex{Hint Opaque}
-
- This adds a transparency hint to the database, making {\tt {\qualid}}
- a transparent or opaque constant during resolution. This information
- is used during unification of the goal with any lemma in the database
- and inside the discrimination network to relax or constrain it in the
- case of \texttt{discriminated} databases.
-
- \begin{Variants}
-
- \item \texttt{Transparent}, \texttt{Opaque} {\ident$_1$} \dots {\ident$_m$}
-
- Declares each {\ident$_i$} as a transparent or opaque constant.
-
- \end{Variants}
-
-\item \texttt{Extern \num\ [\pattern]\ => }\textsl{tactic}
-\comindex{Hint Extern}
-
- This hint type is to extend \texttt{auto} with tactics other than
- \texttt{apply} and \texttt{unfold}. For that, we must specify a
- cost, an optional pattern and a tactic to execute. Here is an example:
-
-\begin{quotation}
-\begin{verbatim}
-Hint Extern 4 (~(_ = _)) => discriminate.
-\end{verbatim}
-\end{quotation}
-
- Now, when the head of the goal is a disequality, \texttt{auto} will
- try \texttt{discriminate} if it does not manage to solve the goal
- with hints with a cost less than 4.
-
- One can even use some sub-patterns of the pattern in the tactic
- script. A sub-pattern is a question mark followed by an ident, like
- \texttt{?X1} or \texttt{?X2}. Here is an example:
-
-% Require EqDecide.
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Require Import List.
-\end{coq_example*}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Hint Extern 5 ({?X1 = ?X2} + {?X1 <> ?X2}) =>
- generalize X1, X2; decide equality : eqdec.
-Goal
-forall a b:list (nat * nat), {a = b} + {a <> b}.
-info auto with eqdec.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\end{itemize}
-
-\Rem One can use an \texttt{Extern} hint with no pattern to do
-pattern-matching on hypotheses using \texttt{match goal with} inside
-the tactic.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item \texttt{Hint} \textsl{hint\_definition}
-
- No database name is given: the hint is registered in the {\tt core}
- database.
-
-\item\texttt{Hint Local} \textsl{hint\_definition} \texttt{:}
- \ident$_1$ \ldots\ \ident$_n$
-
- This is used to declare hints that must not be exported to the other
- modules that require and import the current module. Inside a
- section, the option {\tt Local} is useless since hints do not
- survive anyway to the closure of sections.
-
-\item\texttt{Hint Local} \textsl{hint\_definition}
-
- Idem for the {\tt core} database.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-% There are shortcuts that allow to define several goal at once:
-
-% \begin{itemize}
-% \item \comindex{Hints Resolve}\texttt{Hints Resolve \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$ : \ident.}\\
-% This command is a shortcut for the following ones:
-% \begin{quotation}
-% \noindent\texttt{Hint \ident$_1$ : \ident\ := Resolve \ident$_1$}\\
-% \dots\\
-% \texttt{Hint \ident$_1$ : \ident := Resolve \ident$_1$}
-% \end{quotation}
-% Notice that the hint name is the same that the theorem given as
-% hint.
-% \item \comindex{Hints Immediate}\texttt{Hints Immediate \ident$_1$ \dots\ \ident$_n$ : \ident.}\\
-% \item \comindex{Hints Unfold}\texttt{Hints Unfold \qualid$_1$ \dots\ \qualid$_n$ : \ident.}\\
-% \end{itemize}
-
-%\begin{Warnings}
-% \item \texttt{Overriding hint named \dots\ in database \dots}
-%\end{Warnings}
-
-
-
-\subsection{Hint databases defined in the \Coq\ standard library}
-
-Several hint databases are defined in the \Coq\ standard library. The
-actual content of a database is the collection of the hints declared
-to belong to this database in each of the various modules currently
-loaded. Especially, requiring new modules potentially extend a
-database. At {\Coq} startup, only the {\tt core} and {\tt v62}
-databases are non empty and can be used.
-
-\begin{description}
-
-\item[\tt core] This special database is automatically used by
- \texttt{auto}. It contains only basic lemmas about negation,
- conjunction, and so on from. Most of the hints in this database come
- from the \texttt{Init} and \texttt{Logic} directories.
-
-\item[\tt arith] This database contains all lemmas about Peano's
- arithmetic proved in the directories \texttt{Init} and
- \texttt{Arith}
-
-\item[\tt zarith] contains lemmas about binary signed integers from
- the directories \texttt{theories/ZArith}. When required, the module
- {\tt Omega} also extends the database {\tt zarith} with a high-cost
- hint that calls {\tt omega} on equations and inequalities in {\tt
- nat} or {\tt Z}.
-
-\item[\tt bool] contains lemmas about booleans, mostly from directory
- \texttt{theories/Bool}.
-
-\item[\tt datatypes] is for lemmas about lists, streams and so on that
- are mainly proved in the \texttt{Lists} subdirectory.
-
-\item[\tt sets] contains lemmas about sets and relations from the
- directories \texttt{Sets} and \texttt{Relations}.
-
-\item[\tt typeclass\_instances] contains all the type class instances
- declared in the environment, including those used for \texttt{setoid\_rewrite},
- from the \texttt{Classes} directory.
-\end{description}
-
-There is also a special database called {\tt v62}. It collects all
-hints that were declared in the versions of {\Coq} prior to version
-6.2.4 when the databases {\tt core}, {\tt arith}, and so on were
-introduced. The purpose of the database {\tt v62} is to ensure
-compatibility with further versions of {\Coq} for developments done in
-versions prior to 6.2.4 ({\tt auto} being replaced by {\tt auto with v62}).
-The database {\tt v62} is intended not to be extended (!). It is not
-included in the hint databases list used in the {\tt auto with *} tactic.
-
-Furthermore, you are advised not to put your own hints in the
-{\tt core} database, but use one or several databases specific to your
-development.
-
-\subsection{\tt Print Hint
-\label{PrintHint}
-\comindex{Print Hint}}
-
-This command displays all hints that apply to the current goal. It
-fails if no proof is being edited, while the two variants can be used at
-every moment.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-
-\item {\tt Print Hint {\ident} }
-
- This command displays only tactics associated with \ident\ in the
- hints list. This is independent of the goal being edited, so this
- command will not fail if no goal is being edited.
-
-\item {\tt Print Hint *}
-
- This command displays all declared hints.
-
-\item {\tt Print HintDb {\ident} }
-\label{PrintHintDb}
-\comindex{Print HintDb}
-
- This command displays all hints from database \ident.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{\tt Hint Rewrite \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ : \ident
-\label{HintRewrite}
-\comindex{Hint Rewrite}}
-
-This vernacular command adds the terms {\tt \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$}
-(their types must be equalities) in the rewriting base {\tt \ident}
-with the default orientation (left to right). Notice that the
-rewriting bases are distinct from the {\tt auto} hint bases and that
-{\tt auto} does not take them into account.
-
-This command is synchronous with the section mechanism (see \ref{Section}):
-when closing a section, all aliases created by \texttt{Hint Rewrite} in that
-section are lost. Conversely, when loading a module, all \texttt{Hint Rewrite}
-declarations at the global level of that module are loaded.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt Hint Rewrite -> \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ : \ident}\\
-This is strictly equivalent to the command above (we only make explicit the
-orientation which otherwise defaults to {\tt ->}).
-
-\item {\tt Hint Rewrite <- \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ : \ident}\\
-Adds the rewriting rules {\tt \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$} with a right-to-left
-orientation in the base {\tt \ident}.
-
-\item {\tt Hint Rewrite \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ using {\tac} : {\ident}}\\
-When the rewriting rules {\tt \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$} in {\tt \ident} will
-be used, the tactic {\tt \tac} will be applied to the generated subgoals, the
-main subgoal excluded.
-
-%% \item
-%% {\tt Hint Rewrite [ \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ ] in \ident}\\
-%% {\tt Hint Rewrite [ \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ ] in {\ident} using {\tac}}\\
-%% These are deprecated syntactic variants for
-%% {\tt Hint Rewrite \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ : \ident} and
-%% {\tt Hint Rewrite \term$_1$ \dots \term$_n$ using {\tac} : {\ident}}.
-
-\item \texttt{Print Rewrite HintDb {\ident}}
-
- This command displays all rewrite hints contained in {\ident}.
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\subsection{Hints and sections
-\label{Hint-and-Section}}
-
-Hints provided by the \texttt{Hint} commands are erased when closing a
-section. Conversely, all hints of a module \texttt{A} that are not
-defined inside a section (and not defined with option {\tt Local}) become
-available when the module {\tt A} is imported (using
-e.g. \texttt{Require Import A.}).
-
-\subsection{Setting implicit automation tactics}
-
-\subsubsection[\tt Proof with {\tac}.]{\tt Proof with {\tac}.\label{ProofWith}
-\comindex{Proof with}}
-
- This command may be used to start a proof. It defines a default
- tactic to be used each time a tactic command {\tac$_1$} is ended by
- ``\verb#...#''. In this case the tactic command typed by the user is
- equivalent to \tac$_1$;{\tac}.
-
-\SeeAlso {\tt Proof.} in Section~\ref{BeginProof}.
-
-\subsubsection[\tt Declare Implicit Tactic {\tac}.]{\tt Declare Implicit Tactic {\tac}.\comindex{Declare Implicit Tactic}}
-
-This command declares a tactic to be used to solve implicit arguments
-that {\Coq} does not know how to solve by unification. It is used
-every time the term argument of a tactic has one of its holes not
-fully resolved.
-
-Here is an example:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Parameter quo : nat -> forall n:nat, n<>0 -> nat.
-Notation "x // y" := (quo x y _) (at level 40).
-
-Declare Implicit Tactic assumption.
-Goal forall n m, m<>0 -> { q:nat & { r | q * m + r = n } }.
-intros.
-exists (n // m).
-\end{coq_example}
-
-The tactic {\tt exists (n // m)} did not fail. The hole was solved by
-{\tt assumption} so that it behaved as {\tt exists (quo n m H)}.
-
-\section{Generation of induction principles with {\tt Scheme}
-\label{Scheme}
-\index{Schemes}
-\comindex{Scheme}}
-
-The {\tt Scheme} command is a high-level tool for generating
-automatically (possibly mutual) induction principles for given types
-and sorts. Its syntax follows the schema:
-\begin{quote}
-{\tt Scheme {\ident$_1$} := Induction for \ident'$_1$ Sort {\sort$_1$} \\
- with\\
- \mbox{}\hspace{0.1cm} \dots\\
- with {\ident$_m$} := Induction for {\ident'$_m$} Sort
- {\sort$_m$}}
-\end{quote}
-where \ident'$_1$ \dots\ \ident'$_m$ are different inductive type
-identifiers belonging to the same package of mutual inductive
-definitions. This command generates {\ident$_1$}\dots{} {\ident$_m$}
-to be mutually recursive definitions. Each term {\ident$_i$} proves a
-general principle of mutual induction for objects in type {\term$_i$}.
-
-\begin{Variants}
-\item {\tt Scheme {\ident$_1$} := Minimality for \ident'$_1$ Sort {\sort$_1$} \\
- with\\
- \mbox{}\hspace{0.1cm} \dots\ \\
- with {\ident$_m$} := Minimality for {\ident'$_m$} Sort
- {\sort$_m$}}
-
- Same as before but defines a non-dependent elimination principle more
- natural in case of inductively defined relations.
-
-\item {\tt Scheme Equality for \ident$_1$\comindex{Scheme Equality}}
-
- Tries to generate a boolean equality and a proof of the
- decidability of the usual equality.
-
-\item {\tt Scheme Induction for \ident$_1$ Sort {\sort$_1$} \\
- with\\
- \mbox{}\hspace{0.1cm} \dots\\
- with Induction for {\ident$_m$} Sort
- {\sort$_m$}}
-
- If you do not provide the name of the schemes, they will be automatically
- computed from the sorts involved (works also with Minimality).
-
-\end{Variants}
-
-\SeeAlso Section~\ref{Scheme-examples}
-
-\subsection{Automatic declaration of schemes}
-\comindex{Set Equality Schemes}
-\comindex{Set Elimination Schemes}
-It is possible to deactivate the automatic declaration of the induction
- principles when defining a new inductive type with the
- {\tt Unset Elimination Schemes} command. It may be
-reactivated at any time with {\tt Set Elimination Schemes}.
-\\
-
-You can also activate the automatic declaration of those boolean equalities
-(see the second variant of {\tt Scheme}) with the {\tt Set Equality Schemes}
- command. However you have to be careful with this option since
-\Coq~ may now reject well-defined inductive types because it cannot compute
-a boolean equality for them.
-
-\subsection{\tt Combined Scheme\label{CombinedScheme}
-\comindex{Combined Scheme}}
-The {\tt Combined Scheme} command is a tool for combining
-induction principles generated by the {\tt Scheme} command.
-Its syntax follows the schema :
-
-\noindent
-{\tt Combined Scheme {\ident$_0$} from {\ident$_1$}, .., {\ident$_n$}}\\
-\ident$_1$ \ldots \ident$_n$ are different inductive principles that must belong to
-the same package of mutual inductive principle definitions. This command
-generates {\ident$_0$} to be the conjunction of the principles: it is
-built from the common premises of the principles and concluded by the
-conjunction of their conclusions.
-
-\SeeAlso Section~\ref{CombinedScheme-examples}
-
-\section{Generation of induction principles with {\tt Functional Scheme}
-\label{FunScheme}
-\comindex{Functional Scheme}}
-
-The {\tt Functional Scheme} command is a high-level experimental
-tool for generating automatically induction principles
-corresponding to (possibly mutually recursive) functions. Its
-syntax follows the schema:
-\begin{quote}
-{\tt Functional Scheme {\ident$_1$} := Induction for \ident'$_1$ Sort {\sort$_1$} \\
- with\\
- \mbox{}\hspace{0.1cm} \dots\ \\
- with {\ident$_m$} := Induction for {\ident'$_m$} Sort
- {\sort$_m$}}
-\end{quote}
-where \ident'$_1$ \dots\ \ident'$_m$ are different mutually defined function
-names (they must be in the same order as when they were defined).
-This command generates the induction principles
-\ident$_1$\dots\ident$_m$, following the recursive structure and case
-analyses of the functions \ident'$_1$ \dots\ \ident'$_m$.
-
-
-\paragraph{\texttt{Functional Scheme}}
-There is a difference between obtaining an induction scheme by using
-\texttt{Functional Scheme} on a function defined by \texttt{Function}
-or not. Indeed \texttt{Function} generally produces smaller
-principles, closer to the definition written by the user.
-
-
-\SeeAlso Section~\ref{FunScheme-examples}
-
-
-\section{Simple tactic macros
-\index{Tactic macros}
-\comindex{Tactic Definition}
-\label{TacticDefinition}}
-
-A simple example has more value than a long explanation:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Ltac Solve := simpl; intros; auto.
-Ltac ElimBoolRewrite b H1 H2 :=
- elim b; [ intros; rewrite H1; eauto | intros; rewrite H2; eauto ].
-\end{coq_example}
-
-The tactics macros are synchronous with the \Coq\ section mechanism:
-a tactic definition is deleted from the current environment
-when you close the section (see also \ref{Section})
-where it was defined. If you want that a
-tactic macro defined in a module is usable in the modules that
-require it, you should put it outside of any section.
-
-Chapter~\ref{TacticLanguage} gives examples of more complex
-user-defined tactics.
-
-
-% $Id: RefMan-tac.tex 14762 2011-12-04 20:48:36Z herbelin $
-
-%%% Local Variables:
-%%% mode: latex
-%%% TeX-master: "Reference-Manual"
-%%% TeX-master: "Reference-Manual"
-%%% End: