This PR ensures that `set_option grind.debug true` works properly when
using `grind +ring`. It also adds the helper functions `mkPropEq` and
`mkExpectedPropHint`.
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 ensures that `mkAppM` can be used to construct terms that are
only type-correct at at default transparency, even if we are in
`withReducible` (e.g. in simp), so that simp does not stumble over
simplifying `let` expression with simplifiable type.reliable.
Here is a reproducer of the issue this solves:
```
example (a b : Nat) (h : a = b):
(let _ : id Bool := true; a) = (let _ : Bool := true; b) := by
simp -zeta -zetaDelta [h]
```
This fixes#7826.
This PR modifies `grind` to run with the `reducible` transparency
setting. We do not want `grind` to unfold arbitrary terms during
definitional equality tests. This PR also fixes several issues
introduced by this change. The most common problem was the lack of a
hint in proofs, particularly in those constructed using proof by
reflection. This PR also introduces new sanity checks when `set_option
grind.debug true` is used.
This PR implements support for offset constraints in the `grind` tactic.
Several features are still missing, such as constraint propagation and
support for offset equalities, but `grind` can already solve examples
like the following:
```lean
example (a b c : Nat) : a ≤ b → b + 2 ≤ c → a + 1 ≤ c := by
grind
example (a b c : Nat) : a ≤ b → b ≤ c → a ≤ c := by
grind
example (a b c : Nat) : a + 1 ≤ b → b + 1 ≤ c → a + 2 ≤ c := by
grind
example (a b c : Nat) : a + 1 ≤ b → b + 1 ≤ c → a + 1 ≤ c := by
grind
example (a b c : Nat) : a + 1 ≤ b → b ≤ c + 2 → a ≤ c + 1 := by
grind
example (a b c : Nat) : a + 2 ≤ b → b ≤ c + 2 → a ≤ c := by
grind
```
---------
Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
This PR makes it harder to create "fake" theorems about definitions that
are stubbed-out with `sorry` by ensuring that each `sorry` is not
definitionally equal to any other. For example, this now fails:
```lean
example : (sorry : Nat) = sorry := rfl -- fails
```
However, this still succeeds, since the `sorry` is a single
indeterminate `Nat`:
```lean
def f (n : Nat) : Nat := sorry
example : f 0 = f 1 := rfl -- succeeds
```
One can be more careful by putting parameters to the right of the colon:
```lean
def f : (n : Nat) → Nat := sorry
example : f 0 = f 1 := rfl -- fails
```
Most sources of synthetic sorries (recall: a sorry that originates from
the elaborator) are now unique, except for elaboration errors, since
making these unique tends to cause a confusing cascade of errors. In
general, however, such sorries are labeled. This enables "go to
definition" on `sorry` in the Infoview, which brings you to its origin.
The option `set_option pp.sorrySource true` causes the pretty printer to
show source position information on sorries.
**Details:**
* Adds `Lean.Meta.mkLabeledSorry`, which creates a sorry that is labeled
with its source position. For example, `(sorry : Nat)` might elaborate
to
```
sorryAx (Lean.Name → Nat) false
`lean.foo.12.8.12.13.8.13._sorry._@.lean.foo._hyg.153
```
It can either be made unique (like the above) or merely labeled. Labeled
sorries use an encoding that does not impact defeq:
```
sorryAx (Unit → Nat) false (Function.const Lean.Name ()
`lean.foo.14.7.13.7.13.69._sorry._@.lean.foo._hyg.174)
```
* Makes the `sorry` term, the `sorry` tactic, and every elaboration
failure create labeled sorries. Most are unique sorries, but some
elaboration errors are labeled sorries.
* Renames `OmissionInfo` to `DelabTermInfo` and adds configuration
options to control LSP interactions. One field is a source position to
use for "go to definition". This is used to implement "go to definition"
on labeled sorries.
* Makes hovering over a labeled `sorry` show something friendlier than
that full `sorryAx` expression. Instead, the first hover shows the
simplified ``sorry `«lean.foo:48:11»``. Hovering over that hover shows
the full `sorryAx`. Setting `set_option pp.sorrySource true` makes
`sorry` always start with printing with this source position
information.
* Removes `Lean.Meta.mkSyntheticSorry` in favor of `Lean.Meta.mkSorry`
and `Lean.Meta.mkLabeledSorry`.
* Changes `sorryAx` so that the `synthetic` argument is no longer
optional.
* Gives `addPPExplicitToExposeDiff` awareness of labeled sorries. It can
set `pp.sorrySource` when source positions differ.
* Modifies the delaborator framework so that delaborators can set Info
themselves without it being overwritten.
Incidentally closes#4972.
Inspired by [this Zulip
thread](https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/287929-mathlib4/topic/Is.20a.20.60definition_wanted.60.20keyword.20possible.3F/near/477260277).
This PR changes the signature of `Array.get` to take a Nat and a proof,
rather than a `Fin`, for consistency with the rest of the (planned)
Array API. Note that because of bootstrapping issues we can't provide
`get_elem_tactic` as an autoparameter for the proof. As users will
mostly use the `xs[i]` notation provided by `GetElem`, this hopefully
isn't a problem.
We may restore `Fin` based versions, either here or downstream, as
needed, but they won't be the "main" functions.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
code to create nested `PProd`s, and project out, and related functions
were scattered in variuos places. This unifies them in
`Lean.Meta.PProdN`.
It also consistently avoids the terminal `True` or `PUnit`, for slightly
easier to read constructions.
This introduces the `ArgsPacker` module and abstraction, to replace the
exising `PackDomain`/`PackMutual` code. The motivation was that we now
have more uses besides `Fix.lean` (`GuessLex` and `FunInd`), and the
code was spread in various places.
The goals are
* consistent function naming withing the the `PSigma` handling, the
`PSum` handling, and the combined interface
* avoid taking a type apart just based on the `PSigma`/`PSum` nesting,
to be robust in case the user happens to be using `PSigma`/`PSum`
somewhere. Therefore, always pass an `arity` or `numFuncs` or `varNames`
around.
* keep all the `PSigma`/`PSum` encoding logic contained within one
module (`ArgsPacker`), and keep that module independent of its users (so
no `EqnInfos` visible here).
* pick good variable names when matching on a packed argument
* the unary function now is either called `fun1._unary` or
`fun1._mutual`, never `fun1._unary._mutual`.
This file has less heavy dependencies than `PackMutual` had, so build
parallelism is improved as well.
Before this commit, `Simproc`s were defined as `Expr -> SimpM (Option Step)`, where `Step` is inductively defined as follows:
```
inductive Step where
| visit : Result → Step
| done : Result → Step
```
Here, `Result` is a structure containing the resulting expression and a proof demonstrating its equality to the input. Notably, the proof is optional; in its absence, `simp` assumes reflexivity.
A simproc can:
- Fail by returning `none`, indicating its inapplicability. In this case, the next suitable simproc is attempted, along with other simp extensions.
- Succeed and invoke further simplifications using the `.visit`
constructor. This action returns control to the beginning of the
simplification loop.
- Succeed and indicate that the result should not undergo further
simplifications. However, I find the current approach unsatisfactory, as it does not align with the methodology employed in `Transform.lean`, where we have the type:
```
inductive TransformStep where
/-- Return expression without visiting any subexpressions. -/
| done (e : Expr)
/--
Visit expression (which should be different from current expression) instead.
The new expression `e` is passed to `pre` again.
-/
| visit (e : Expr)
/--
Continue transformation with the given expression (defaults to current expression).
For `pre`, this means visiting the children of the expression.
For `post`, this is equivalent to returning `done`. -/
| continue (e? : Option Expr := none)
```
This type makes it clearer what is going on. The new `Simp.Step` type is similar but use `Result` instead of `Expr` because we need a proof.
Encouraged by the performance gains from making `rewrite` produce
smaller proof objects
(#3121) I am here looking for low-hanging fruit in `simp`.
Consider this typical example:
```
set_option pp.explicit true
theorem test
(a : Nat)
(b : Nat)
(c : Nat)
(heq : a = b)
(h : (c.add (c.add ((c.add b).add c))).add c = c)
: (c.add (c.add ((c.add a).add c))).add c = c
```
We get a rather nice proof term when using
```
:= by rw [heq]; assumption
```
namely
```
theorem test : ∀ (a b c : Nat),
@Eq Nat a b →
@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) c →
@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c) c :=
fun a b c heq h =>
@Eq.mpr (@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c) c)
(@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) c)
(@congrArg Nat Prop a b (fun _a => @Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c _a) c))) c) c) heq) h
```
(this is with #3121).
But with `by simp only [heq]; assumption`, it looks rather different:
```
theorem test : ∀ (a b c : Nat),
@Eq Nat a b →
@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) c →
@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c) c :=
fun a b c heq h =>
@Eq.mpr (@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c) c)
(@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) c)
(@id
(@Eq Prop (@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c) c)
(@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) c))
(@congrFun Nat (fun a => Prop) (@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c))
(@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c))
(@congrArg Nat (Nat → Prop) (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c)
(Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) (@Eq Nat)
(@congrFun Nat (fun a => Nat) (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))))
(Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))))
(@congrArg Nat (Nat → Nat) (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c)))
(Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) Nat.add
(@congrArg Nat Nat (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c)) (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c)) (Nat.add c)
(@congrArg Nat Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c) (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c) (Nat.add c)
(@congrFun Nat (fun a => Nat) (Nat.add (Nat.add c a)) (Nat.add (Nat.add c b))
(@congrArg Nat (Nat → Nat) (Nat.add c a) (Nat.add c b) Nat.add
(@congrArg Nat Nat a b (Nat.add c) heq))
c))))
c))
c))
h
```
Since simp uses only single-step `congrArg`/`congrFun` congruence lemmas
here, the proof
term grows very large, likely quadratic in this case.
Can we do better? Every nesting of `congrArg` (and it's little brother
`congrFun`) can be
turned into a single `congrArg` call.
In this PR I make making the smart app builders `Meta.mkCongrArg` and
`Meta.mkCongrFun` a bit
smarter and not only fuse with `Eq.refl`, but also with
`congrArg`/`congrFun`.
Now we get, in this simple example,
```
theorem test : ∀ (a b c : Nat),
@Eq Nat a b →
@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) c →
@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c) c :=
fun a b c heq h =>
@Eq.mpr (@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c a) c))) c) c)
(@Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c b) c))) c) c)
(@congrArg Nat Prop a b (fun x => @Eq Nat (Nat.add (Nat.add c (Nat.add c (Nat.add (Nat.add c x) c))) c) c) heq) h
```
Let’s see if it works and how much we gain.
Switches from encoding `let_fun` using an annotated `(fun x : t => b) v`
expression to a function application `letFun v (fun x : t => b)`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Sebastian Ullrich <sebasti@nullri.ch>
This issue is similar to a bug where `isDefEqOffset` was exposing
`Nat.add` when processing `HAdd.hAdd`.
Fixes#561
The example at issue #561 is now working, but we may have other places
where raw literals are being accidentally exposed.
