Just an `Array` version of `List.eraseReps`. These functions are for now
outside of scope for verification, so there's just a simple `example` in
the tests.
Previously, it was not possible to use `decide` with most Array
functions (including `==`).
Later, we may replace some of these functions with defeqs that go via
the `List` operations, and use `csimp` lemmas for fast runtime
behaviour. In the meantime, this allows using `decide`.
This is part 2 of 2 of #4801 (which closes#4654). That PR was split in
two to allow a stage0 update between declaring the `usize` functions and
using them where they are needed.
Add efficient `usize` functions for `Array`, `ByteArray`, `FloatArray`.
This is part 1 of 2 since there is a need to update stage0 between the
two parts. (See discussion below.)
Closes#4654
We recently discovered inconsistencies in Mathlib and Std over the
ordering of the arguments for `==`.
The most common usage puts the "more variable" term on the LHS, and the
"more constant" term on the RHS, however there are plenty of exceptions,
and they cause unnecessary pain when switching (particularly, sometimes
requiring otherwise unneeded `LawfulBEq` hypotheses).
This convention is consistent with the (obvious) preference for `x == 0`
over `0 == x` when one term is a literal.
We recently updated Std to use this convention
https://github.com/leanprover/std4/pull/430
This PR changes the two major places in Lean that use the opposite
convention, and adds a suggestion to the docstring for `BEq` about the
preferred convention.
otherwise it remains in the equational theorem and may cause the
“unused have linter” to trigger. By moving the proof into
`decreasing_by`, the equational theorems are unencumbered by termination
arguments.
see also
https://github.com/leanprover/std4/pull/690#issuecomment-2095378609
This PR upstreams lemmas about List/Array operations already defined in
Lean from std/batteries.
Happy to take suggestions about increasing or decreasing scope.
---------
Co-authored-by: Mario Carneiro <di.gama@gmail.com>
Because of the last-added-tried-first rule for macros, all the special
purpose `decreasing_trivial` rules are tried for most recursive
definitions out there, and because they use `apply` and `assumption`
with default transparency may cause some definitoins to be unfolded over
and over again.
A quick test with one of the functions in the leansat project shows that
elaboration time goes down from 600ms to 375ms when using
```
decreasing_by all_goals decreasing_with with_reducible decreasing_trivial
```
instead of
```
decreasing_by all_goals decreasing_with decreasing_trivial
```
This change uses `with_reducible` in most of these macros.
This means that these tactics will no longer work when the
relations/definitions they look for is hidden behind a definition.
This affected in particular `Array.sizeOf_get`, which now has a
companion `sizeOf_getElem`.
In addition, there were three tactics using `apply` to apply Nat-related
lemmas
that we now expect `omega` to solve. We still need them when building
`Init` modules
that don’t have access to `omega`, but they now live in
`decreasing_trivial_pre_omega`,
meant to be only used internally.
This makes changes to the `GetElem` class so that it does not lead to
unnecessary overhead in container like `RBMap`.
The changes are to:
1. Make `getElem?` and `getElem!` part of the `GetElem` class so they
can be overridden in instances.
2. Introduce a `LawfulGetElem` class that contains correctness theorems
for `getElem?` and `getElem!` using the original definitions.
3. Reorganize definitions (e.g, by moving `GetElem` out of
`Init.Prelude`) so that the `GetElem` changes are feasible.
4. Provide `LawfulGetElem` instances to complement all existing
`GetElem` instances in Lean core.
To reduce the size of the PR, this doesn't do the work of providing new
`GetElem` instances for `RBMap`, `HashMap` etc. That will be done in a
separate PR (#3688) that depends on this.
---------
Co-authored-by: Mac Malone <tydeu@hatpress.net>
This shortens `Array.findIdx?` code, by using termination_by (and
well-founded recursion) instead of a structural recursion trick, with
the intent to make it more proof friendly.
One motivation is that it makes it easier to write a proof that
`Array.findIdx?` and `List.findIdx?` are equivalent. Furthermore, this
will be useful to prove that more complex functions are equivalent.
Closes#3646
- Removes the public definitions `Array.eraseIdxAux` and
`Array.eraseIdxSzAux` which were implementation details.
- Motivation: `Array.eraseIdxAux` and `Array.eraseIdxSzAux` were clearly
not intended to remain public, but simply making them private would make
it inconvenient to unfold them when writing proofs in Std.
- Adds documentation comments to the public `Array.eraseIdx`-related
definitions which remain.
- Removes `Array.eraseIdx'` which was just `Array.feraseIdx` wrapped in
a subtype and adds `Array.size_feraseIdx` to prove the subtype property
as a standalone theorem.
Co-Authored-By: Daniel Windham <daniel@atlascomputing.org>
Replaces `@[eliminator]` with two attributes `@[induction_eliminator]`
and `@[cases_eliminator]` for defining custom eliminators for the
`induction` and `cases` tactics, respectively.
Adds `Nat.recAux` and `Nat.casesAuxOn`, which are eliminators that are
defeq to `Nat.rec` and `Nat.casesOn`, but these use `0` and `n + 1`
rather than `Nat.zero` and `Nat.succ n`.
For example, using `induction` to prove that the factorial function is
positive now has the following goal states (thanks also to #3616 for the
goal state after unfolding).
```lean
example : 0 < fact x := by
induction x with
| zero => decide
| succ x ih =>
/-
x : Nat
ih : 0 < fact x
⊢ 0 < fact (x + 1)
-/
unfold fact
/-
...
⊢ 0 < (x + 1) * fact x
-/
simpa using ih
```
Thanks to @adamtopaz for initial work on splitting the `@[eliminator]`
attribute.
`Array.set!` and `Array.swap!` are fairly similar operations, both
modify an array, both take an index that it out of bounds.
But they behave different; all of these return `true`
```
#eval #[1,2].set! 2 42 == #[1,2] -- with panic
#reduce #[1,2].set! 2 42 == #[1,2] -- no panic
#eval #[1,2].swap! 0 2 == #[1,2] -- with panic
#reduce #[1,2].swap! 0 2 == default -- no panic
```
The implementations are
```
@[extern "lean_array_set"]
def Array.set! (a : Array α) (i : @& Nat) (v : α) : Array α :=
Array.setD a i v
```
but
```
@[extern "lean_array_swap"]
def swap! (a : Array α) (i j : @& Nat) : Array α :=
if h₁ : i < a.size then
if h₂ : j < a.size then swap a ⟨i, h₁⟩ ⟨j, h₂⟩
else panic! "index out of bounds"
else panic! "index out of bounds"
```
It seems to be more consistent to unify the behaviors, and define
```
@[extern "lean_array_swap"]
def swap! (a : Array α) (i j : @& Nat) : Array α :=
if h₁ : i < a.size then
if h₂ : j < a.size then swap a ⟨i, h₁⟩ ⟨j, h₂⟩
else a
else a
```
Also adds docstrings.
Fixes#3196
