From 61dc740ed1c3780cccaec00d059a28f0d31d0052 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stephane Glondu <steph@glondu.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:07:52 +0200
Subject: Imported Upstream version 8.4~gamma0+really8.4beta2

---
 doc/refman/RefMan-tacex.tex | 584 --------------------------------------------
 1 file changed, 584 deletions(-)

(limited to 'doc/refman/RefMan-tacex.tex')

diff --git a/doc/refman/RefMan-tacex.tex b/doc/refman/RefMan-tacex.tex
index 8330a434..83a8cd11 100644
--- a/doc/refman/RefMan-tacex.tex
+++ b/doc/refman/RefMan-tacex.tex
@@ -3,590 +3,6 @@
 This chapter presents detailed examples of certain tactics, to
 illustrate their behavior.
 
-\section[\tt refine]{\tt refine\tacindex{refine}
-\label{refine-example}}
-
-This tactic applies to any goal. It behaves like {\tt exact} with a
-big difference : the user can leave some holes (denoted by \texttt{\_} or 
-{\tt (\_:}{\it type}{\tt )}) in the term. 
-{\tt refine} will generate as many
-subgoals as they are holes in the term. The type of holes must be
-either synthesized by the system or declared by an
-explicit cast like \verb|(\_:nat->Prop)|. This low-level
-tactic can be useful to advanced users.
-
-%\firstexample
-\Example
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Inductive Option : Set :=
-  | Fail : Option
-  | Ok : bool -> Option.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_example}
-Definition get : forall x:Option, x <> Fail -> bool.
-refine
- (fun x:Option =>
-    match x return x <> Fail -> bool with
-    | Fail => _
-    | Ok b => fun _ => b
-    end).
-intros; absurd (Fail = Fail); trivial.
-\end{coq_example}
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Defined.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-% \example{Using Refine to build a poor-man's ``Cases'' tactic}
-
-% \texttt{Refine} is actually the only way for the user to do
-% a proof with the same structure as a {\tt Cases} definition. Actually,
-% the tactics \texttt{case} (see \ref{case}) and \texttt{Elim} (see
-% \ref{elim}) only allow one step of elementary induction. 
-
-% \begin{coq_example*}
-% Require Bool.
-% Require Arith.
-% \end{coq_example*}
-% %\begin{coq_eval}
-% %Abort.
-% %\end{coq_eval}
-% \begin{coq_example}
-% Definition one_two_or_five := [x:nat]
-%   Cases x of
-%     (1) => true
-%   | (2) => true
-%   | (5) => true
-%   | _ => false
-%   end.
-% Goal (x:nat)(Is_true (one_two_or_five x)) -> x=(1)\/x=(2)\/x=(5).
-% \end{coq_example}
-
-% A traditional script would be the following:
-
-% \begin{coq_example*}
-% Destruct x.
-% Tauto.
-% Destruct n.
-% Auto.
-% Destruct n0.
-% Auto.
-% Destruct n1.
-% Tauto.
-% Destruct n2.
-% Tauto.
-% Destruct n3.
-% Auto.
-% Intros; Inversion H.
-% \end{coq_example*}
-
-% With the tactic \texttt{Refine}, it becomes quite shorter:
-
-% \begin{coq_example*}
-% Restart.
-% \end{coq_example*}
-% \begin{coq_example}
-% Refine [x:nat]
-%   <[y:nat](Is_true (one_two_or_five y))->(y=(1)\/y=(2)\/y=(5))>
-%   Cases x of
-%     (1) => [H]?
-%   | (2) => [H]?
-%   | (5) => [H]?
-%   | n => [H](False_ind ? H)
-%   end; Auto.
-% \end{coq_example}
-% \begin{coq_eval}
-% Abort.
-% \end{coq_eval}
-
-\section[\tt eapply]{\tt eapply\tacindex{eapply}
-\label{eapply-example}}
-\Example
-Assume we have a relation on {\tt nat} which is transitive:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Variable R : nat -> nat -> Prop.
-Hypothesis Rtrans : forall x y z:nat, R x y -> R y z -> R x z.
-Variables n m p : nat.
-Hypothesis Rnm : R n m.
-Hypothesis Rmp : R m p.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-Consider the goal {\tt (R n p)} provable using the transitivity of
-{\tt R}:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Goal R n p.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-The direct application of {\tt Rtrans} with {\tt apply} fails because
-no value for {\tt y} in {\tt Rtrans} is found by {\tt apply}:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Set Printing Depth 50.
-(********** The following is not correct and should produce **********)
-(**** Error: generated subgoal (R n ?17) has metavariables in it *****)
-\end{coq_eval}
-\begin{coq_example}
-apply Rtrans.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-A solution is to rather apply {\tt (Rtrans n m p)}.
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-apply (Rtrans n m p).
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Undo.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-More elegantly, {\tt apply Rtrans with (y:=m)} allows to only mention
-the unknown {\tt m}:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-
-  apply Rtrans with (y := m).
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Undo.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-Another solution is to mention the proof of {\tt (R x y)} in {\tt
-Rtrans}...
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-
-  apply Rtrans with (1 := Rnm).
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Undo.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-... or the proof of {\tt (R y z)}:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-
-  apply Rtrans with (2 := Rmp).
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Undo.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-On the opposite, one can use {\tt eapply} which postpone the problem
-of finding {\tt m}. Then one can apply the hypotheses {\tt Rnm} and {\tt
-Rmp}. This instantiates the existential variable and completes the proof.
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-eapply Rtrans.
-apply Rnm.
-apply Rmp.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset R.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\section[{\tt Scheme}]{{\tt Scheme}\comindex{Scheme}
-\label{Scheme-examples}}
-
-\firstexample
-\example{Induction scheme for \texttt{tree} and \texttt{forest}}
-
-The definition of principle of mutual induction for {\tt tree} and
-{\tt forest} over the sort {\tt Set} is defined by the command:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-Variables A B : 
-              Set.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Inductive tree : Set :=
-    node : A -> forest -> tree
-with forest : Set :=
-  | leaf : B -> forest
-  | cons : tree -> forest -> forest.
-
-Scheme tree_forest_rec := Induction for tree Sort Set
-  with forest_tree_rec := Induction for forest Sort Set.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-You may now look at the type of {\tt tree\_forest\_rec}:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check tree_forest_rec.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-This principle involves two different predicates for {\tt trees} and
-{\tt forests}; it also has three premises each one corresponding to a
-constructor of one of the inductive definitions.
-
-The principle {\tt forest\_tree\_rec} shares exactly the same
-premises, only the conclusion now refers to the property of forests.
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check forest_tree_rec.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\example{Predicates {\tt odd} and {\tt even} on naturals}
-
-Let {\tt odd} and {\tt even} be inductively defined as:
-
-% Reset Initial.
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Open Scope nat_scope.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Inductive odd : nat -> Prop :=
-    oddS : forall n:nat, even n -> odd (S n)
-with even : nat -> Prop :=
-  | evenO : even 0
-  | evenS : forall n:nat, odd n -> even (S n).
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-The following command generates a powerful elimination
-principle:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Scheme odd_even := Minimality for   odd Sort Prop
-  with even_odd := Minimality for even Sort Prop.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-The type of {\tt odd\_even} for instance will be:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check odd_even.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-The type of {\tt even\_odd} shares the same premises but the
-conclusion is {\tt (n:nat)(even n)->(Q n)}.
-
-\subsection[{\tt Combined Scheme}]{{\tt Combined Scheme}\comindex{Combined Scheme}
-\label{CombinedScheme-examples}}
-
-We can define the induction principles for trees and forests using:
-\begin{coq_example}
-Scheme tree_forest_ind := Induction for tree Sort Prop
-  with forest_tree_ind := Induction for forest Sort Prop.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-Then we can build the combined induction principle which gives the
-conjunction of the conclusions of each individual principle:
-\begin{coq_example}
-Combined Scheme tree_forest_mutind from tree_forest_ind, forest_tree_ind.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-The type of {\tt tree\_forest\_mutrec} will be:
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check tree_forest_mutind.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\section[{\tt Functional Scheme} and {\tt functional induction}]{{\tt Functional Scheme} and {\tt functional induction}\comindex{Functional Scheme}\tacindex{functional induction}
-\label{FunScheme-examples}}
-
-\firstexample
-\example{Induction scheme for \texttt{div2}}
-
-We define the function \texttt{div2} as follows:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Require Import Arith.
-Fixpoint div2 (n:nat) : nat :=
-  match n with
-  | O => 0
-  | S O => 0
-  | S (S n') => S (div2 n')
-  end.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-The definition of a principle of induction corresponding to the
-recursive structure of \texttt{div2} is defined by the command:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Functional Scheme div2_ind := Induction for div2 Sort Prop.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-You may now look at the type of {\tt div2\_ind}:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check div2_ind.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-We can now prove the following lemma using this principle:
-
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Lemma div2_le' : forall n:nat, div2 n <= n.
-intro n.
- pattern n , (div2 n).
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-apply div2_ind; intros.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-auto with arith.
-auto with arith.
-simpl; auto with arith.
-Qed.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-We can use directly the \texttt{functional induction}
-(\ref{FunInduction}) tactic instead of the pattern/apply trick:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Reset div2_le'.
-Lemma div2_le : forall n:nat, div2 n <= n.
-intro n.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-functional induction (div2 n).
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-auto with arith.
-auto with arith.
-auto with arith.
-Qed.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-\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.
-
-
-\example{Induction scheme for \texttt{tree\_size}}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-We define trees by the following mutual inductive type:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Variable A : Set.
-Inductive tree : Set :=
-    node : A -> forest -> tree
-with forest : Set :=
-  | empty : forest
-  | cons : tree -> forest -> forest.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-We define the function \texttt{tree\_size} that computes the size
-of a tree or a forest. Note that we use \texttt{Function} which
-generally produces better principles.
-
-\begin{coq_example*}                
-Function tree_size (t:tree) : nat :=
-  match t with
-  | node A f => S (forest_size f)
-  end
- with forest_size (f:forest) : nat :=
-  match f with
-  | empty => 0
-  | cons t f' => (tree_size t + forest_size f')
-  end.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-Remark: \texttt{Function} generates itself non mutual induction
-principles {\tt tree\_size\_ind} and {\tt forest\_size\_ind}:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check tree_size_ind.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-The definition of mutual induction principles following the recursive
-structure of \texttt{tree\_size} and \texttt{forest\_size} is defined
-by the command:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Functional Scheme tree_size_ind2 := Induction for tree_size Sort Prop
-with forest_size_ind2 := Induction for forest_size Sort Prop.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-You may now look at the type of {\tt tree\_size\_ind2}:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check tree_size_ind2.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-
-
-
-\section[{\tt inversion}]{{\tt inversion}\tacindex{inversion}
-\label{inversion-examples}}
-
-\subsection*{Generalities about inversion}
-
-When working with (co)inductive predicates, we are very often faced to
-some of these situations:
-\begin{itemize}
-\item we have an inconsistent instance of an inductive predicate in the
-  local context of hypotheses. Thus, the current goal can be trivially
-  proved by absurdity. 
-\item we have a hypothesis that is an instance of an inductive
-  predicate, and the instance has some variables whose constraints we
-  would like to derive.
-\end{itemize}
-
-The inversion tactics are very useful to simplify the work in these
-cases. Inversion tools can be classified in three groups:
-
-\begin{enumerate}
-\item tactics for inverting an instance without stocking the inversion
-  lemma in the context; this includes the tactics
-  (\texttt{dependent})  \texttt{inversion} and
- (\texttt{dependent}) \texttt{inversion\_clear}.
-\item commands for generating and stocking in the context the inversion
-  lemma corresponding to an instance; this includes \texttt{Derive}
-  (\texttt{Dependent}) \texttt{Inversion} and \texttt{Derive}
-  (\texttt{Dependent}) \texttt{Inversion\_clear}.
-\item tactics for inverting an instance using an already defined
-  inversion lemma; this includes the tactic \texttt{inversion \ldots using}.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-As inversion proofs may be large in size, we recommend the user to
-stock the lemmas whenever the same instance needs to be inverted
-several times.
-
-\firstexample
-\example{Non-dependent inversion}
-
-Let's consider the relation \texttt{Le} over natural numbers and the
-following variables:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Inductive Le : nat -> nat -> Set :=
-  | LeO : forall n:nat, Le 0 n
-  | LeS : forall n m:nat, Le n m -> Le (S n) (S m).
-Variable P : nat -> nat -> Prop.
-Variable Q : forall n m:nat, Le n m -> Prop.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-For example, consider the goal:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Lemma ex : forall n m:nat, Le (S n) m -> P n m.
-intros.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Show.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-To prove the goal we may need to reason by cases on \texttt{H} and to 
- derive that \texttt{m}  is necessarily of
-the form $(S~m_0)$ for certain $m_0$ and that $(Le~n~m_0)$.  
-Deriving these conditions corresponds to prove that the
-only possible constructor of \texttt{(Le (S n) m)}  is
-\texttt{LeS} and that we can invert the 
-\texttt{->} in the type  of \texttt{LeS}.  
-This inversion is possible because \texttt{Le} is the smallest set closed by
-the constructors \texttt{LeO} and \texttt{LeS}.
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-inversion_clear H.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-Note that \texttt{m} has been substituted in the goal for \texttt{(S m0)}
-and that the hypothesis \texttt{(Le n m0)} has been added to the
-context.
-
-Sometimes it is
-interesting to have the equality \texttt{m=(S m0)} in the
-context to use it after. In that case we can use \texttt{inversion} that
-does not clear the equalities:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Undo.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-inversion H.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Undo.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\example{Dependent Inversion}
-
-Let us consider the following goal:
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Lemma ex_dep : forall (n m:nat) (H:Le (S n) m), Q (S n) m H.
-intros.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Show.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-As \texttt{H} occurs in the goal, we may want to reason by cases on its
-structure and so, we would like  inversion tactics to
-substitute \texttt{H} by the corresponding term in constructor form. 
-Neither \texttt{Inversion} nor  {\tt Inversion\_clear} make such a
-substitution. 
-To have such a behavior we use the dependent inversion tactics:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-dependent inversion_clear H.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-Note that \texttt{H} has been substituted by \texttt{(LeS n m0 l)} and
-\texttt{m} by \texttt{(S m0)}.
-
-\example{using already defined inversion  lemmas}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Abort.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
-For example, to generate the inversion lemma for the instance
-\texttt{(Le (S n) m)} and the sort \texttt{Prop} we do:
-
-\begin{coq_example*}
-Derive Inversion_clear leminv with (forall n m:nat, Le (S n) m) Sort
- Prop.
-\end{coq_example*}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Check leminv.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-Then we can use the proven inversion lemma:
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-Show.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_example}
-inversion H using leminv.
-\end{coq_example}
-
-\begin{coq_eval}
-Reset Initial.
-\end{coq_eval}
-
 \section[\tt dependent induction]{\tt dependent induction\label{dependent-induction-example}}
 \def\depind{{\tt dependent induction}~}
 \def\depdestr{{\tt dependent destruction}~}
-- 
cgit v1.2.3