27df5e968a
This PR implements `Simp.Config.implicitDefEqsProofs`. When `true` (default: `true`), `simp` will **not** create a proof term for a rewriting rule associated with an `rfl`-theorem. Rewriting rules are provided by users by annotating theorems with the attribute `@[simp]`. If the proof of the theorem is just `rfl` (reflexivity), and `implicitDefEqProofs := true`, `simp` will **not** create a proof term which is an application of the annotated theorem. The default setting does change the existing behavior. Users can use `simp -implicitDefEqProofs` to force `simp` to create a proof term for `rfl`-theorems. This can positively impact proof checking time in the kernel. This PR also fixes an issue in the `split` tactic that has been exposed by this feature. It was looking for `split` candidates in proofs and implicit arguments. See new test for issue exposed by the previous feature. --------- Co-authored-by: Kim Morrison <kim@tqft.net>
25 lines
609 B
Text
25 lines
609 B
Text
def f (x : Nat) := x + 1
|
|
|
|
theorem f_eq (x : Nat) : f (x + 1) = x + 2 := rfl
|
|
|
|
theorem ex1 : f (f (x + 1)) = x + 3 := by
|
|
simp -implicitDefEqProofs [f_eq]
|
|
|
|
/--
|
|
info: theorem ex1 : ∀ {x : Nat}, f (f (x + 1)) = x + 3 :=
|
|
fun {x} =>
|
|
of_eq_true
|
|
(Eq.trans (congrArg (fun x_1 => x_1 = x + 3) (Eq.trans (congrArg f (f_eq x)) (f_eq (x + 1)))) (eq_self (x + 1 + 2)))
|
|
-/
|
|
#guard_msgs in
|
|
#print ex1
|
|
|
|
theorem ex2 : f (f (x + 1)) = x + 3 := by
|
|
simp +implicitDefEqProofs [f_eq]
|
|
|
|
/--
|
|
info: theorem ex2 : ∀ {x : Nat}, f (f (x + 1)) = x + 3 :=
|
|
fun {x} => of_eq_true (eq_self (x + 1 + 2))
|
|
-/
|
|
#guard_msgs in
|
|
#print ex2
|