This PR adds BitVec lemmas required to cancel multiplicative negatives,
and plumb support through to bv_normalize to make use of this result in
the normalized twos-complement form.
I include some bmod lemmas I found useful to prove this result, the two
helper lemmas I add use the same naming/proofs as their emod
equivalents.
This PR proves the basic theorems about the functions `Int.bdiv` and
`Int.bmod`.
For all integers `x` and all natural numbers `m`, we have:
- `Int.bdiv_add_bmod`: `m * bdiv x m + bmod x m = x` (which is stated in
the docstring for docs#Int.bdiv)
- `Int.bmod_add_bdiv`: `bmod x m + m * bdiv x m = x`
- `Int.bdiv_add_bmod'`: `bdiv x m * m + bmod x m = x`
- `Int.bmod_add_bdiv'`: `bmod x m + bdiv x m * m = x`
- `Int.bmod_eq_self_sub_mul_bdiv`: `bmod x m = x - m * bdiv x m`
- `Int.bmod_eq_self_sub_bdiv_mul`: `bmod x m = x - bdiv x m * m`
These theorems are all equivalent to each other by the basic properties
of addition, multiplication, and subtraction of integers.
The names `Int.bdiv_add_bmod`, `Int.bmod_add_bdiv`,
`Int.bdiv_add_bmod'`, and `Int.bmod_add_bdiv'` are meant to parallel the
names of the existing theorems docs#Int.tmod_add_tdiv,
docs#Int.tdiv_add_tmod, docs#Int.tmod_add_tdiv', and
docs#Int.tdiv_add_tmod'.
The names `Int.bmod_eq_self_sub_mul_bdiv` and
`Int.bmod_eq_self_sub_bdiv_mul` follow mathlib's naming conventions.
Note that there is already a theorem called docs#Int.bmod_def, so it
would not have been possible to parallel the name of the existing
theorem docs#Int.tmod_def.
See
https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/217875-Is-there-code-for-X.3F/topic/bdiv.20and.20bmod.
Closes#6493.
This PR removes the deprecated aliases `Int.div := Int.tdiv` and
`Int.mod := Int.tmod`. Later we will rename `Int.ediv` to `Int.div` and
`Int.emod` to `Int.mod`.
This PR makes some proofs more robust so they will still work with
`byAsSorry`. Unfortunately, they are not a complete fix and there are
remaining problems building with `byAsSorry`.
Following up #5928, updates the syntax for `omega` and `solve_by_elim`
and restores the syntax quotations in their implementations.
Following up #5898, uses the new tactic syntax in the library, replacing
all uses of `(config := ...)`.
The theorem
```lean
namespace Int
theorem ediv_nonneg_of_nonpos_of_nonpos {a b : Int} (Ha : a ≤ 0) (Hb : b ≤ 0) : 0 ≤ a / b := by
match a, b with
| ofNat a, b =>
match Int.le_antisymm Ha (ofNat_zero_le a) with
| h1 =>
rw [h1, zero_ediv,]
exact Int.le_refl 0
| a, ofNat b =>
match Int.le_antisymm Hb (ofNat_zero_le b) with
| h1 =>
rw [h1, Int.ediv_zero]
exact Int.le_refl 0
| negSucc a, negSucc b =>
rw [Int.div_def, ediv]
have le_succ {a: Int} : a ≤ a+1 := (le_add_one (Int.le_refl a))
have h2: 0 ≤ ((↑b:Int) + 1) := Int.le_trans (ofNat_zero_le b) le_succ
have h3: (0:Int) ≤ ↑a / (↑b + 1) := (ediv_nonneg (ofNat_zero_le a) h2)
exact Int.le_trans h3 le_succ
```
is nontrivial to prove from existing theorems and would be nice to add
as standard theorem in DivModLemmas.
See the zullip conversation
[here](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/113488-general/topic/Adding.20theorem.20theorem.20ediv_nonneg'.20for.20negative.20a.20and.20b)
---------
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
From the new doc-string:
```quote
In early versions of Lean, the typeclasses provided by `/` and `%`
were defined in terms of `tdiv` and `tmod`, and these were named simply as `div` and `mod`.
However we decided it was better to use `ediv` and `emod`,
as they are consistent with the conventions used in SMTLib, Mathlib,
and often mathematical reasoning is easier with these conventions.
At that time, we did not rename `div` and `mod` to `tdiv` and `tmod` (along with all their lemma).
In September 2024, we decided to do this rename (with deprecations in place),
and later we intend to rename `ediv` and `emod` to `div` and `mod`, as nearly all users will only
ever need to use these functions and their associated lemmas.
```
The linters in Batteries can be used to spot mistakes in Lean. See the
message on
[Zulip](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/270676-lean4/topic/Go-to-def.20on.20typeclass.20fields.20and.20type-dependent.20notation/near/442613564).
These are the different linters with errors:
- unusedArguments:
There are many unused instance arguments, especially a redundant `[Monad
m]` is very common
- checkUnivs:
There was a problem with universes in a definition in
`Init.Control.StateCps`. I fixed it by adding a `variable` statement for
the implicit arguments in the file.
- defLemma:
many proofs are written as `def` instead of `theorem`, most notably
`rfl`. Because `rfl` is used as a match pattern, it must be a def. Is
this desirable?
The keyword `abbrev` is sometimes used for an alias of a theorem, which
also results in a def. I would want to replace it with the `alias`
keyword to fix this, but it isn't available.
- dupNamespace:
I fixed some of these, but left `Tactic.Tactic` and `Parser.Parser` as
they are as these seem intended.
- unusedHaveSuffices:
I cleaned up a few proofs with unused `have` or `suffices`
- explicitVarsOfIff:
I didn't fix any of these, because that would be a breaking change.
- simpNF:
I didn't fix any of these, because I think that requires knowing the
intended simplification order.
Remark: when splitting an `if-then-else` term, the subgoals now have
tags `isTrue` and `isFalse` instead of `inl` and `inr`.
closes#4313
---------
Co-authored-by: Mario Carneiro <di.gama@gmail.com>
In the course of the development, I grabbed facts about right shifting
over integers [from
`mathlib4`](https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/master/Mathlib/Data/Int/Bitwise.lean).
The core proof strategy is to perform a case analysis of the msb:
- If `msb = false`, then `sshiftRight = ushiftRight`.
- If `msb = true`. then `x >>>s i = ~~~(~~~(x >>>u i))`. The double
negation introduces the high `1` bits that one expects of the arithmetic
shift.
---------
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <scott@tqft.net>
we keep running into examples where working with well-founded recursion
is slow because defeq checks (which are all over the place, including
failing ones that are back-tracked) unfold well-founded definitions.
The definition of a function defined by well-founded recursion should be
an implementation detail that should only be peeked inside by the
equation generator and the functional induction generator.
We now mark the mutual recursive function as irreducible (if the user
did not
set a flag explicitly), and use `withAtLeastTransparency .all` when
producing
the equations.
Proofs can be fixed by using rewriting, or – a bit blunt, but nice for
adjusting
existing proofs – using `unseal` (a.k.a. `attribute [local
semireducible]`).
Mathlib performance does not change a whole lot:
http://speed.lean-fro.org/mathlib4/compare/08b82265-75db-4a28-b12b-08751b9ad04a/to/16f46d5e-28b1-41c4-a107-a6f6594841f8
Build instructions -0.126 %, four modules with significant instructions
decrease.
To reduce impact, these definitions were changed:
* `Nat.mod`, to make `1 % n` reduce definitionally, so that `1` as a
`Fin 2` literal
works nicely. Theorems with larger `Fin` literals tend to need a `unseal
Nat.modCore`
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/pull/4098
* `List.ofFn` rewritten to be structurally recursive and not go via
`Array.ofFn`:
https://github.com/leanprover-community/batteries/pull/784
Alternative designs explored were
* Making `WellFounded.fix` irreducible.
One benefit is that recursive functions with equal definitions (possibly
after
instantiating fixed parameters) are defeq; this is used in mathlib to
relate
[`OrdinalApprox.gfpApprox`](https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib4_docs/Mathlib/SetTheory/Ordinal/FixedPointApproximants.html#OrdinalApprox.gfpApprox)
with `.lfpApprox`.
But the downside is that one cannot use `unseal` in a
targeted way, being explicit in which recursive function needs to be
reducible here.
And in cases where Lean does unwanted unfolding, we’d still unfold the
recursive
definition once to expose `WellFounded.fix`, leading to large terms for
often no good
reason.
* Defining `WellFounded.fix` to unroll defintionally once before hitting
a irreducible
`WellFounded.fixF`. This was explored in #4002. It shares most of the
ups and downs
with the previous variant, with the additional neat benefit that
function calls that
do not lead to recursive cases (e.g. a `[]` base case) reduce nicely.
This means that
the majority of existing `rfl` proofs continue to work.
Issue #4051, which demonstrates how badly things can go if wf recursive
functions can be
unrolled, showed that making the recursive function irreducible there
leads to noticeably
faster elaboration than making `WellFounded.fix` irreducible; this is
good evidence that
the present PR is the way to go.
This fixes https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/3988
---------
Co-authored-by: Leonardo de Moura <leomoura@amazon.com>
this is in preparation for #4061. Once that lands, `1 % 42 = 1` will no
longer hold definitionally (at least not without an ungly `unseal
Nat.modCore in` around). This affects mathlib in a few places,
essentially every time a `1 : Fin (n+1)` literal is written.
So this extends the existing special case for `0 % n = 0` to `1 % n`.
Just a lemma that we noticed is missing when working on #3880 at the
retreat. We also noticed that there are naming inconsistencies in the
lemmas for `bmod` and `emod`, we should fix that in the future.
This adds some basic lemmas to support commuting ofInt/toInt and
add/mul.
It also removes the simp annotation on `ofNat_add_ofNat` as in some
contexts the other direction or conversion to Int may be desired.
[Before](https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/files/14772220/oi.pdf) and
[after](https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/files/14772226/oi2.pdf).
This gets `ByteArray`, `String.Extra`, `ToString.Macro` and `RCases` out
of the imports of `omega`. I'd hoped to get `Array.Subarray` too, but
it's tangled up in the list literal syntax. Further progress could come
from make `split` use available `Decidable` instances, so we could pull
out `Classical` (and possibly some of `PropLemmas`).
This is pretty big PR that upstreams all of Std.Data.Int.Init in one go.
So far lemmas have seen minimal changes needed to adapt to Lean core
environment.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
