This PR implements tactics called `extract_lets` and `lift_lets` that
manipulate `let`/`let_fun` expressions. The `extract_lets` tactic
creates new local declarations extracted from any `let` and `let_fun`
expressions in the main goal. For top-level lets in the target, it is
like the `intros` tactic, but in general it can extract lets from deeper
subexpressions as well. The `lift_lets` tactic moves `let` and `let_fun`
expressions as far out of an expression as possible, but it does not
extract any new local declarations. The option `extract_lets +lift`
combines these behaviors.
This is a re-implementation of `extract_lets` and `lift_lets` from
mathlib. The new `extract_lets` is like doing `lift_lets; extract_lets`,
but it does not lift unextractable lets like `lift_lets`. The
`lift_lets; extract_lets` behavior is now handled by `extract_lets
+lift`. The new `lift_lets` tactic is a frontend to `extract_lets +lift`
machinery, which rather than creating new local definitions instead
represents the accumulated local declarations as top-level lets.
There are also conv tactics for both of these. The `extract_lets` has a
limitation due to the conv architecture; it can extract lets for a given
conv goal, but the local declarations don't survive outside conv. They
get zeta reduced immediately upon leaving conv.
This PR implements several modifications for the cutsat procedure in
`grind`.
- The maximal variable is now at the beginning of linear polynomials.
- The old `LinearArith.Solver` was deleted, and the normalizer was moved
to `Simp`.
- cutsat first files were created, and basic infrastructure for
representing divisibility constraints was added.
This PR adds the `try?` tactic. This is the first draft, but it can
already solve examples such as:
```lean
example (e : Expr) : e.simplify.eval σ = e.eval σ := by
try?
```
in `grind_constProp.lean`. In the example above, it suggests:
```lean
induction e using Expr.simplify.induct <;> grind?
```
In the same test file, we have
```lean
example (σ₁ σ₂ : State) : σ₁.join σ₂ ≼ σ₂ := by
try?
```
and the following suggestion is produced
```lean
induction σ₁, σ₂ using State.join.induct <;> grind?
```
This updates the rw? tactic from Mathlib to use lazy discriminator trees
and upstreams it.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
This adds the concept of **functional induction** to lean.
Derived from the definition of a (possibly mutually) recursive function,
a **functional
induction principle** is tailored to proofs about that function. For
example from:
```
def ackermann : Nat → Nat → Nat
| 0, m => m + 1
| n+1, 0 => ackermann n 1
| n+1, m+1 => ackermann n (ackermann (n + 1) m)
derive_functional_induction ackermann
```
we get
```
ackermann.induct (motive : Nat → Nat → Prop) (case1 : ∀ (m : Nat), motive 0 m)
(case2 : ∀ (n : Nat), motive n 1 → motive (Nat.succ n) 0)
(case3 : ∀ (n m : Nat), motive (n + 1) m → motive n (ackermann (n + 1) m) → motive (Nat.succ n) (Nat.succ m))
(x x : Nat) : motive x x
```
At the moment, the user has to ask for the functional induction
principle explicitly using
```
derive_functional_induction ackermann
```
The module docstring of `Lean/Meta/Tactic/FunInd.lean` contains more
details on the
design and implementation of this command.
More convenience around this (e.g. a `functional induction` tactic) will
follow eventually.
This PR includes a bunch of `PSum`/`PSigma` related functions in the
`Lean.Tactic.FunInd`
namespace. I plan to move these to `PackArgs`/`PackMutual` afterwards,
and do some cleaning
up as I do that.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
Co-authored-by: Leonardo de Moura <leomoura@amazon.com>
This is a quite substantial tactic.
It also includes the infamour `NatCast` typeclass (which I've equipped
with a module-doc). I wasn't at all sure where that should live, so it
is currently randomly in `Lean/Elan/Tactic/NatCast.lean`: presumably if
we're doing this it will go somewhere in `Init`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Leonardo de Moura <leomoura@amazon.com>
