This follows the norm for all other Bitvector operations, and makes the
symbols `/` and `%` the simp normal form.
I'd imagine that @hargonix would prefer that this be merged after
https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/pull/5628, so as to prevent churn
for his PR. I'm happy to rebase the PR once the other PR lands.
---------
Co-authored-by: Henrik Böving <hargonix@gmail.com>
This PR adds the theorems
```
@[simp]
theorem divRec_zero (qr : DivModState w) :
divRec w w 0 n d qr = qr
@[simp]
theorem divRec_succ' (wn : Nat) (qr : DivModState w) :
divRec w wr (wn + 1) n d qr =
let r' := shiftConcat qr.r (n.getLsbD wn)
let input : DivModState w :=
if r' < d then ⟨qr.q.shiftConcat false, r'⟩ else ⟨qr.q.shiftConcat true, r' - d⟩
divRec w (wr + 1) wn n d input
```
The final statements may need some masasging to interoperate with
`bv_decide`. We prove the recurrence for unsigned division by building a
shift-subtract circuit, and then showing that this circuit obeys the
division algorithm's invariant.
---
A `DivModState` is lawful if the remainder width `wr` plus the dividend
width `wn` equals `w`,
and the bitvectors `r` and `n` have values in the bounds given by
bitwidths `wr`, resp. `wn`.
This is a proof engineering choice: An alternative world could have
`r : BitVec wr` and `n : BitVec wn`, but this required much more
dependent typing coercions.
Instead, we choose to declare all involved bitvectors as length `w`, and
then prove that
the values are within their respective bounds.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <github@grosser.es>
Co-authored-by: Alex Keizer <alex@keizer.dev>
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <scott@tqft.net>
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es>
In LNSym we often use the pattern `ofBool (a.getLsbD i)` to pick out a
specific bit (`i`) from a bitvector (`a`).
By adding a rewrite to `extractLsb` to `bv_decide`s normalization set,
we can still automatically close goals that have this pattern. In the
process, I also added a simp-lemma about the value of a `Fin 1`.
This renames `BitVec.getLsb` to `getLsbD` (`D` for "default" value, i.e.
false), and introduces `getLsb?` and `getLsb'` (which we can rename to
`getLsb` after a deprecation cycle).
(Similarly for `getMsb`.)
Also adds a `GetElem` class so we can use `x[i]` and `x[i]?` notation.
Later, we will turn
```
theorem getLsbD_eq_getElem?_getD (x : BitVec w) (i : Nat) (h : i < w) :
x.getLsbD i = x[i]?.getD false
```
on as a `@[simp]` lemma.
This PR doesn't attempt to demonstrate the benefits, but I think both
arguments are going to get easier, and this will bring the BitVec API
closer in line to List/Array, etc.
---------
Co-authored-by: Markus Himmel <markus@lean-fro.org>
This change canonicalizes the BitVec variable names to `x y z : BitVec`
instead of alternative namings such as `s t : BitVec` or `a b : BitVec`.
Variable names that carry semantic meaning such as `(msbs : BitVec w)
(lsb : Bool)` remain untouched.
This is purely a naming change to make our bitvector proofs more
consistent and polish the (auto-generated) documentation as a very small
step towards polishing the documentation of the BitVec library in Lean.
---------
Co-authored-by: AnotherAlexHere <153999274+AnotherAlexHere@users.noreply.github.com>
This allows bitblasting `BitVec.replicate`.
I changed the definition of `BitVec.replicate` to use `BitVec.cast` in
order to make the proof smoother, since it's an easier time simplifying
away terms with `BitVec.cast`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <tobias@grosser.es>
We add a new definition `BitVec.twoPow w i` to represent `(1#w <<< i)`.
This expression is used to test bits when building the multiplication
bitblaster.
Patch 1/?, being peeled from https://github.com/opencompl/lean4/pull/6.
---------
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <github@grosser.es>
The performance issue at #4413 is due to our `Fin.sub` definition.
```
def sub : Fin n → Fin n → Fin n
| ⟨a, h⟩, ⟨b, _⟩ => ⟨(a + (n - b)) % n, mlt h⟩
```
Thus, the following runs out of stack space
```
example (a : UInt64) : a - 1 = a :=
rfl
```
at the `isDefEq` test
```
(a.val.val + 18446744073709551615) % 18446744073709551616 =?= a.val.val
```
From the user's perspective, this timeout is unexpected since they are
using small numerals, and none of the other `Fin` basic operations (such
as `Fin.add` and `Fin.mul`) suffer from this problem.
This PR implements an inelegant solution for the performance issue. It
redefines `Fin.sub` as
```
def sub : Fin n → Fin n → Fin n
| ⟨a, h⟩, ⟨b, _⟩ => ⟨((n - b) + a) % n, mlt h⟩
```
This approach is unattractive because it relies on the fact that
`Nat.add` is defined using recursion on the second argument.
The impact on this repo was small, but we want to evaluate the impact on
Mathlib.
closes#4413
This ensures that rotateLeft/Right behave correctly even when the
rotation amount is larger than the bitwidth.
This shall be followed up with `getLsb` theorems for rotations for
LeanSAT.
We choose to write `aux` definitions since it is cleaner to reason about
the `aux` theorems with the assumption that `rotation-amount <
bit-width`, followed by auxiliary lemmas that link the behavior of
rotation to the canonical case when `rotation-amount < bit-width`.
Proof strategy we will execute based on these definitions: [Link to
proof of
`getLsb_rotateLeft`](a0b18ec0f4/src/Init/Data/BitVec/Lemmas.lean (L1129-L1204))
---------
Co-authored-by: Tobias Grosser <github@grosser.es>
This PR is an effort to improve reasoning at the Nat level about
bitvectors and reduce of Fin and Nat.
It slightly tightens some proofs, but is generally aimed at reducing
inconsistencies between definitions at the Nat and Fin types in favor of
more consistently using Nat operations.
This ports leanprover/std4#664 to Lean core.
Here was the rational I provided in the discussion for
leanprover/std4#664:
It's mostly about consistency. If we use the same types and style in
definitions and proofs, there is less surprise when unfolding or
otherwise using definitions. We use some Nat based operations that
haven't been extended to Fin such as the bitwise operations, and I don't
want to pay the overhead of introducing a Fin version of every Bitvector
operation.
So this basically means Nat is preferred.
One argument potentially in favor of Fin is that we could reuse results
proven there, but that doesn't really seem to be the case so far.
A second argument is that we want to simplify expression to use more
canonical forms and we currently can pretty-print those operations
better using ofNat than ofFin. We could define the notations using ofFin
of course though, but that's additional operators that will show up in
expressions.
