with this, more functions will be proven terminating automatically,
namely those where after `simp_wf`, lexicographic order handling,
possibly `subst_vars` the remaining goal can be solved by `omega`.
Note that `simp_wf` already does simplification of the goal, so
this adds `omega`, not `(try simp) <;> omega` here.
There are certainly cases where `(try simp) <;> omega` will solve more
goals (e.g. due to the `subst_vars` in `decreasing_with`), and
`(try simp at *) <;> omega` even more. This PR errs on the side of
taking
smaller steps.
Just appending `<;> omega` to the existing
`simp (config := { arith := true, failIfUnchanged := false })` call
doesn’t work nicely, as that leaves forms like `Nat.sub` in the goal
that
`omega` does not seem to recognize.
This does *not* remove any of the existing ad-hoc `decreasing_trivial`
rules based on `apply` and `assumption`, to not regress over the status
quo (these rules may apply in cases where `omega` wouldn't “see”
everything, but `apply` due to defeq works).
Additionally, just extending makes bootstrapping easier; early in `Init`
where
`omega` does not work yet these other tactics can still be used.
(Using a single `omega`-based tactic was tried in #3478 but isn’t quite
possible yet, and will be postponed until we have better automation
including forward reasoning.)
The elaborator is prone to duplicate terms, including recursive calls,
even if the user only wrote a single one. This duplication is wasteful
if we run the tactics on duplicated calls, and confusing in the output
of GuessLex. So prune the list of recursive calls, and remove those
where another call exists that has the same goal and context that is no
more specific.
by showing the matrix of calls and measures, and what we know about that
call (=, <, ≤, ?), e.g.
guessLexFailures.lean:27:0-33:31: error: Could not find a decreasing
measure.
The arguments relate at each recursive call as follows:
(<, ≤, =: relation proved, ? all proofs failed, _: no proof attempted)
x1 x2 x3
1) 29:6-25 = = =
2) 30:6-23 = ? <
3) 31:6-23 < _ _
Please use `termination_by` to specify a decreasing measure
It’s a bit more verbose for mutual functions.
It will use the user-specified argument names for functions written
```
foo (n : Nat) := …
```
but not with pattern matching like
```
foo : Nat → …
| n => …
```
This can be refined later and separately (and maybe right away in
`expandMatchAltsWhereDecls`).
If here is only one plausible measure, there is no point having the
`GuessLex` code see if it
is terminating, running all the tactics, only for the `MkFix` code then
run the tactics again.
So if there is only one plausible measure (non-mutual recursion with
only one varying
parameter), just use that measure.
Side benefit: If the function isn’t terminating, more detailed error
messages are shown
(failing proof goals), located at the recursive calls.
This improves Lean’s capabilities to guess the termination measure for
well-founded
recursion, by also trying lexicographic orders. For example:
def ackermann (n m : Nat) := match n, m with
| 0, m => m + 1
| .succ n, 0 => ackermann n 1
| .succ n, .succ m => ackermann n (ackermann (n + 1) m)
now just works.
The module docstring of `Lean.Elab.PreDefinition.WF.GuessLex` tells the
technical story.
Fixes#2837
