This is still a draft PR, but includes the core exact? and apply?
tactics.
Still need to convert to builtin syntax and test on Std.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Thrane Christiansen <david@davidchristiansen.dk>
The current `ToExpr Int` instance produces `@Int.ofNat (@OfNat.ofNat Nat
i ...)` for nonnegative `i` and `@Int.negSucc (@OfNat.ofNat Nat (-i+1)
...)` for negative `i`.
However it should be producing `@OfNat.ofNat Int i ...` for nonnegative
`i`, and `@Neg.neg ... (@OfNat.ofNat Int (-i) ...)` for negative `i`.
Make `x.toNat * 2 + b.toNat` the simp normal form of `(concat x
b).toNat`.
The choice for multiplication and addition was inspired by `Nat.bit_val`
from Mathlib.
Also, because we have considerably more lemmas about multiplication and
`_ + 1` than about shifts and `_ ||| 1`.
This is very helpful when dealing with bitvectors, where a case analysis
on the bitwidth leaves one with hypotheses of the form `x<2^(Nat.succ
w)`.
Design decisions I am unsure about:
- Is creating a helper `succ?` the correct way to match on the exponent
`e+1`?
- I'm not certain why the prior call to `Int.ofNat_pow` also checked
that the exponent was a ground natural. I removed this, since we now
explicitly handle cases where the exponent is a term of the form `e+1`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Joe Hendrix <joe@lean-fro.org>
Co-authored-by: Alex Keizer <alex@keizer.dev>
First (baby)-step to a `concat`-based `bitblast`: a characterization of
`concat` in terms of `getLsb`.
The proof might benefit slightly from a `toNat_concat` lemma, but I
wasn't sure what the normal form there should be, so I avoided it.
---------
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott@tqft.net>
Every usage of `carry` followed the pattern: `carry _ x.toNat y.toNat`,
so we've refactorod `carry` to take the `BitVec`s as arguments, and made
the `toNat` part of its definition.
PR #3432 will introduce more operations on `MatcherApp`, including somet
that have more dependencies.
This change prepares by introducing `Lean.Meta.Match.MatcherApp.Basic`
for the basic definition, and `Lean.Meta.MatcherApp.Transform` for the
transformations, currently `addArg` and `refineThrough`, but more to
come.
This is a follow up to 'https://github.com/leanprover/std4/pull/645',
where the simp lemmas were requested:
https://github.com/leanprover/std4/pull/645#issuecomment-1944862251
---
Note that @semorrison asked to use `(Fin.last _)` to index. Now that we
use a `Nat` to index `msb` , the pattern `(Fin.last _)` would not have
the width be automatically inferred. Therefore, I've changed the
definitions to use `Nat` for indexing.
---------
Co-authored-by: Siddharth Bhat Mala <sb2743@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Co-authored-by: Scott Morrison <scott.morrison@gmail.com>
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.
Adds a simple error-recovery mechanism to Lean's parser, similar to
those used in other combinator parsing libraries.
Lean itself isn't very amenable to error recovery with this mechanism,
as it requires global knowledge of the grammar in question to write
recovery rules that don't break backtracking or `<|>`. I only found a
few opportunities.
But for DSLs, this is really important. In particular, Verso parse
errors interacted very badly with Lean parse errors in a way that
required frequent "restart file" commands, but this mechanism allows me
to both recover from Verso parse errors and to have Lean skip the rest
of the file rather than repeatedly trying to parse it as Lean commands.
