theory Framework

imports Main

begin

chapter {* The Isabelle/Isar Framework \label{ch:isar-framework} *}

text {*

  Isabelle/Isar

  \cite{Wenzel:1999:TPHOL,Wenzel-PhD,Nipkow-TYPES02,Wenzel-Paulson:2006,Wenzel:2006:Festschrift}

  is intended as a generic framework for developing formal

  mathematical documents with full proof checking.  Definitions and

  proofs are organized as theories.  An assembly of theory sources may

  be presented as a printed document; see also

  \chref{ch:document-prep}.

  The main objective of Isar is the design of a human-readable

  structured proof language, which is called the ``primary proof

  format'' in Isar terminology.  Such a primary proof language is

  somewhere in the middle between the extremes of primitive proof

  objects and actual natural language.  In this respect, Isar is a bit

  more formalistic than Mizar

  \cite{Trybulec:1993:MizarFeatures,Rudnicki:1992:MizarOverview,Wiedijk:1999:Mizar},

  using logical symbols for certain reasoning schemes where Mizar

  would prefer English words; see \cite{Wenzel-Wiedijk:2002} for

  further comparisons of these systems.

  So Isar challenges the traditional way of recording informal proofs

  in mathematical prose, as well as the common tendency to see fully

  formal proofs directly as objects of some logical calculus (e.g.\

  @{text "\<lambda>"}-terms in a version of type theory).  In fact, Isar is

  better understood as an interpreter of a simple block-structured

  language for describing the data flow of local facts and goals,

  interspersed with occasional invocations of proof methods.

  Everything is reduced to logical inferences internally, but these

  steps are somewhat marginal compared to the overall bookkeeping of

  the interpretation process.  Thanks to careful design of the syntax

  and semantics of Isar language elements, a formal record of Isar

  instructions may later appear as an intelligible text to the

  attentive reader.

  The Isar proof language has emerged from careful analysis of some

  inherent virtues of the existing logical framework of Isabelle/Pure

  \cite{paulson-found,paulson700}, notably composition of higher-order

  natural deduction rules, which is a generalization of Gentzen's

  original calculus \cite{Gentzen:1935}.  The approach of generic

  inference systems in Pure is continued by Isar towards actual proof

  texts.

  Concrete applications require another intermediate layer: an

  object-logic.  Isabelle/HOL \cite{isa-tutorial} (simply-typed

  set-theory) is being used most of the time; Isabelle/ZF

  \cite{isabelle-ZF} is less extensively developed, although it would

  probably fit better for classical mathematics.

  \medskip In order to illustrate natural deduction in Isar, we shall

  refer to the background theory and library of Isabelle/HOL.  This

  includes common notions of predicate logic, naive set-theory etc.\

  using fairly standard mathematical notation.  From the perspective

  of generic natural deduction there is nothing special about the

  logical connectives of HOL (@{text "\<and>"}, @{text "\<or>"}, @{text "\<forall>"},

  @{text "\<exists>"}, etc.), only the resulting reasoning principles are

  relevant to the user.  There are similar rules available for

  set-theory operators (@{text "\<inter>"}, @{text "\<union>"}, @{text "\<Inter>"}, @{text

  "\<Union>"}, etc.), or any other theory developed in the library (lattice

  theory, topology etc.).

  Subsequently we briefly review fragments of Isar proof texts

  corresponding directly to such general deduction schemes.  The

  examples shall refer to set-theory, to minimize the danger of

  understanding connectives of predicate logic as something special.

  \medskip The following deduction performs @{text "\<inter>"}-introduction,

  working forwards from assumptions towards the conclusion.  We give

  both the Isar text, and depict the primitive rule involved, as

  determined by unification of the problem against rules that are

  declared in the library context.

*}

text_raw {*\medskip\begin{minipage}{0.6\textwidth}*}

(*<*)

example_proof

(*>*)

    assume "x \<in> A" and "x \<in> B"

    then have "x \<in> A \<inter> B" ..

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text_raw {*\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.4\textwidth}*}

text {*

  \infer{@{prop "x \<in> A \<inter> B"}}{@{prop "x \<in> A"} & @{prop "x \<in> B"}}

*}

text_raw {*\end{minipage}*}

text {*

  \medskip\noindent Note that @{command assume} augments the proof

  context, @{command then} indicates that the current fact shall be

  used in the next step, and @{command have} states an intermediate

  goal.  The two dots ``@{command ".."}'' refer to a complete proof of

  this claim, using the indicated facts and a canonical rule from the

  context.  We could have been more explicit here by spelling out the

  final proof step via the @{command "by"} command:

*}

(*<*)

example_proof

(*>*)

    assume "x \<in> A" and "x \<in> B"

    then have "x \<in> A \<inter> B" by (rule IntI)

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text {*

  \noindent The format of the @{text "\<inter>"}-introduction rule represents

  the most basic inference, which proceeds from given premises to a

  conclusion, without any nested proof context involved.

  The next example performs backwards introduction on @{term "\<Inter>\<A>"},

  the intersection of all sets within a given set.  This requires a

  nested proof of set membership within a local context, where @{term

  A} is an arbitrary-but-fixed member of the collection:

*}

text_raw {*\medskip\begin{minipage}{0.6\textwidth}*}

(*<*)

example_proof

(*>*)

    have "x \<in> \<Inter>\<A>"

    proof

      fix A

      assume "A \<in> \<A>"

      show "x \<in> A" sorry %noproof

    qed

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text_raw {*\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.4\textwidth}*}

text {*

  \infer{@{prop "x \<in> \<Inter>\<A>"}}{\infer*{@{prop "x \<in> A"}}{@{text "[A][A \<in> \<A>]"}}}

*}

text_raw {*\end{minipage}*}

text {*

  \medskip\noindent This Isar reasoning pattern again refers to the

  primitive rule depicted above.  The system determines it in the

  ``@{command proof}'' step, which could have been spelt out more

  explicitly as ``@{command proof}~@{text "(rule InterI)"}''.  Note

  that the rule involves both a local parameter @{term "A"} and an

  assumption @{prop "A \<in> \<A>"} in the nested reasoning.  This kind of

  compound rule typically demands a genuine sub-proof in Isar, working

  backwards rather than forwards as seen before.  In the proof body we

  encounter the @{command fix}-@{command assume}-@{command show}

  outline of nested sub-proofs that is typical for Isar.  The final

  @{command show} is like @{command have} followed by an additional

  refinement of the enclosing claim, using the rule derived from the

  proof body.

  \medskip The next example involves @{term "\<Union>\<A>"}, which can be

  characterized as the set of all @{term "x"} such that @{prop "\<exists>A. x

  \<in> A \<and> A \<in> \<A>"}.  The elimination rule for @{prop "x \<in> \<Union>\<A>"} does

  not mention @{text "\<exists>"} and @{text "\<and>"} at all, but admits to obtain

  directly a local @{term "A"} such that @{prop "x \<in> A"} and @{prop "A

  \<in> \<A>"} hold.  This corresponds to the following Isar proof and

  inference rule, respectively:

*}

text_raw {*\medskip\begin{minipage}{0.6\textwidth}*}

(*<*)

example_proof

(*>*)

    assume "x \<in> \<Union>\<A>"

    then have C

    proof

      fix A

      assume "x \<in> A" and "A \<in> \<A>"

      show C sorry %noproof

    qed

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text_raw {*\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.4\textwidth}*}

text {*

  \infer{@{prop "C"}}{@{prop "x \<in> \<Union>\<A>"} & \infer*{@{prop "C"}~}{@{text "[A][x \<in> A, A \<in> \<A>]"}}}

*}

text_raw {*\end{minipage}*}

text {*

  \medskip\noindent Although the Isar proof follows the natural

  deduction rule closely, the text reads not as natural as

  anticipated.  There is a double occurrence of an arbitrary

  conclusion @{prop "C"}, which represents the final result, but is

  irrelevant for now.  This issue arises for any elimination rule

  involving local parameters.  Isar provides the derived language

  element @{command obtain}, which is able to perform the same

  elimination proof more conveniently:

*}

(*<*)

example_proof

(*>*)

    assume "x \<in> \<Union>\<A>"

    then obtain A where "x \<in> A" and "A \<in> \<A>" ..

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text {*

  \noindent Here we avoid to mention the final conclusion @{prop "C"}

  and return to plain forward reasoning.  The rule involved in the

  ``@{command ".."}'' proof is the same as before.

*}

section {* The Pure framework \label{sec:framework-pure} *}

text {*

  The Pure logic \cite{paulson-found,paulson700} is an intuitionistic

  fragment of higher-order logic \cite{church40}.  In type-theoretic

  parlance, there are three levels of @{text "\<lambda>"}-calculus with

  corresponding arrows @{text "\<Rightarrow>"}/@{text "\<And>"}/@{text "\<Longrightarrow>"}:

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{ll}

  @{text "\<alpha> \<Rightarrow> \<beta>"} & syntactic function space (terms depending on terms) \\

  @{text "\<And>x. B(x)"} & universal quantification (proofs depending on terms) \\

  @{text "A \<Longrightarrow> B"} & implication (proofs depending on proofs) \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip

  \noindent Here only the types of syntactic terms, and the

  propositions of proof terms have been shown.  The @{text

  "\<lambda>"}-structure of proofs can be recorded as an optional feature of

  the Pure inference kernel \cite{Berghofer-Nipkow:2000:TPHOL}, but

  the formal system can never depend on them due to \emph{proof

  irrelevance}.

  On top of this most primitive layer of proofs, Pure implements a

  generic calculus for nested natural deduction rules, similar to

  \cite{Schroeder-Heister:1984}.  Here object-logic inferences are

  internalized as formulae over @{text "\<And>"} and @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"}.

  Combining such rule statements may involve higher-order unification

  \cite{paulson-natural}.

*}

subsection {* Primitive inferences *}

text {*

  Term syntax provides explicit notation for abstraction @{text "\<lambda>x ::

  \<alpha>. b(x)"} and application @{text "b a"}, while types are usually

  implicit thanks to type-inference; terms of type @{text "prop"} are

  called propositions.  Logical statements are composed via @{text "\<And>x

  :: \<alpha>. B(x)"} and @{text "A \<Longrightarrow> B"}.  Primitive reasoning operates on

  judgments of the form @{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<phi>"}, with standard introduction

  and elimination rules for @{text "\<And>"} and @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"} that refer to

  fixed parameters @{text "x\<^isub>1, \<dots>, x\<^isub>m"} and hypotheses

  @{text "A\<^isub>1, \<dots>, A\<^isub>n"} from the context @{text "\<Gamma>"};

  the corresponding proof terms are left implicit.  The subsequent

  inference rules define @{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<phi>"} inductively, relative to a

  collection of axioms:

  \[

  \infer{@{text "\<turnstile> A"}}{(@{text "A"} \text{~axiom})}

  \qquad

  \infer{@{text "A \<turnstile> A"}}{}

  \]

  \[

  \infer{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<And>x. B(x)"}}{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B(x)"} & @{text "x \<notin> \<Gamma>"}}

  \qquad

  \infer{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B(a)"}}{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<And>x. B(x)"}}

  \]

  \[

  \infer{@{text "\<Gamma> - A \<turnstile> A \<Longrightarrow> B"}}{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B"}}

  \qquad

  \infer{@{text "\<Gamma>\<^sub>1 \<union> \<Gamma>\<^sub>2 \<turnstile> B"}}{@{text "\<Gamma>\<^sub>1 \<turnstile> A \<Longrightarrow> B"} & @{text "\<Gamma>\<^sub>2 \<turnstile> A"}}

  \]

  Furthermore, Pure provides a built-in equality @{text "\<equiv> :: \<alpha> \<Rightarrow> \<alpha> \<Rightarrow>

  prop"} with axioms for reflexivity, substitution, extensionality,

  and @{text "\<alpha>\<beta>\<eta>"}-conversion on @{text "\<lambda>"}-terms.

  \medskip An object-logic introduces another layer on top of Pure,

  e.g.\ with types @{text "i"} for individuals and @{text "o"} for

  propositions, term constants @{text "Trueprop :: o \<Rightarrow> prop"} as

  (implicit) derivability judgment and connectives like @{text "\<and> :: o

  \<Rightarrow> o \<Rightarrow> o"} or @{text "\<forall> :: (i \<Rightarrow> o) \<Rightarrow> o"}, and axioms for object-level

  rules such as @{text "conjI: A \<Longrightarrow> B \<Longrightarrow> A \<and> B"} or @{text "allI: (\<And>x. B

  x) \<Longrightarrow> \<forall>x. B x"}.  Derived object rules are represented as theorems of

  Pure.  After the initial object-logic setup, further axiomatizations

  are usually avoided; plain definitions and derived principles are

  used exclusively.

*}

subsection {* Reasoning with rules \label{sec:framework-resolution} *}

text {*

  Primitive inferences mostly serve foundational purposes.  The main

  reasoning mechanisms of Pure operate on nested natural deduction

  rules expressed as formulae, using @{text "\<And>"} to bind local

  parameters and @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"} to express entailment.  Multiple

  parameters and premises are represented by repeating these

  connectives in a right-associative manner.

  Since @{text "\<And>"} and @{text "\<Longrightarrow>"} commute thanks to the theorem

  @{prop "(A \<Longrightarrow> (\<And>x. B x)) \<equiv> (\<And>x. A \<Longrightarrow> B x)"}, we may assume w.l.o.g.\

  that rule statements always observe the normal form where

  quantifiers are pulled in front of implications at each level of

  nesting.  This means that any Pure proposition may be presented as a

  \emph{Hereditary Harrop Formula} \cite{Miller:1991} which is of the

  form @{text "\<And>x\<^isub>1 \<dots> x\<^isub>m. H\<^isub>1 \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> H\<^isub>n \<Longrightarrow>

  A"} for @{text "m, n \<ge> 0"}, and @{text "A"} atomic, and @{text

  "H\<^isub>1, \<dots>, H\<^isub>n"} being recursively of the same format.

  Following the convention that outermost quantifiers are implicit,

  Horn clauses @{text "A\<^isub>1 \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> A\<^isub>n \<Longrightarrow> A"} are a special

  case of this.

  For example, @{text "\<inter>"}-introduction rule encountered before is

  represented as a Pure theorem as follows:

  \[

  @{text "IntI:"}~@{prop "x \<in> A \<Longrightarrow> x \<in> B \<Longrightarrow> x \<in> A \<inter> B"}

  \]

  \noindent This is a plain Horn clause, since no further nesting on

  the left is involved.  The general @{text "\<Inter>"}-introduction

  corresponds to a Hereditary Harrop Formula with one additional level

  of nesting:

  \[

  @{text "InterI:"}~@{prop "(\<And>A. A \<in> \<A> \<Longrightarrow> x \<in> A) \<Longrightarrow> x \<in> \<Inter>\<A>"}

  \]

  \medskip Goals are also represented as rules: @{text "A\<^isub>1 \<Longrightarrow>

  \<dots> A\<^isub>n \<Longrightarrow> C"} states that the sub-goals @{text "A\<^isub>1, \<dots>,

  A\<^isub>n"} entail the result @{text "C"}; for @{text "n = 0"} the

  goal is finished.  To allow @{text "C"} being a rule statement

  itself, we introduce the protective marker @{text "# :: prop \<Rightarrow>

  prop"}, which is defined as identity and hidden from the user.  We

  initialize and finish goal states as follows:

  \[

  \begin{array}{c@ {\qquad}c}

  \infer[(@{inference_def init})]{@{text "C \<Longrightarrow> #C"}}{} &

  \infer[(@{inference_def finish})]{@{text C}}{@{text "#C"}}

  \end{array}

  \]

  \noindent Goal states are refined in intermediate proof steps until

  a finished form is achieved.  Here the two main reasoning principles

  are @{inference resolution}, for back-chaining a rule against a

  sub-goal (replacing it by zero or more sub-goals), and @{inference

  assumption}, for solving a sub-goal (finding a short-circuit with

  local assumptions).  Below @{text "\<^vec>x"} stands for @{text

  "x\<^isub>1, \<dots>, x\<^isub>n"} (@{text "n \<ge> 0"}).

  \[

  \infer[(@{inference_def resolution})]

  {@{text "(\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> \<^vec>A (\<^vec>a \<^vec>x))\<vartheta> \<Longrightarrow> C\<vartheta>"}}

  {\begin{tabular}{rl}

    @{text "rule:"} &

    @{text "\<^vec>A \<^vec>a \<Longrightarrow> B \<^vec>a"} \\

    @{text "goal:"} &

    @{text "(\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> B' \<^vec>x) \<Longrightarrow> C"} \\

    @{text "goal unifier:"} &

    @{text "(\<lambda>\<^vec>x. B (\<^vec>a \<^vec>x))\<vartheta> = B'\<vartheta>"} \\

   \end{tabular}}

  \]

  \medskip

  \[

  \infer[(@{inference_def assumption})]{@{text "C\<vartheta>"}}

  {\begin{tabular}{rl}

    @{text "goal:"} &

    @{text "(\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> A \<^vec>x) \<Longrightarrow> C"} \\

    @{text "assm unifier:"} & @{text "A\<vartheta> = H\<^sub>i\<vartheta>"}~~\text{(for some~@{text "H\<^sub>i"})} \\

   \end{tabular}}

  \]

  The following trace illustrates goal-oriented reasoning in

  Isabelle/Pure:

  {\footnotesize

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{r@ {\quad}l}

  @{text "(A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> B \<and> A) \<Longrightarrow> #(A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> B \<and> A)"} & @{text "(init)"} \\

  @{text "(A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> B) \<Longrightarrow> (A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A) \<Longrightarrow> #\<dots>"} & @{text "(resolution B \<Longrightarrow> A \<Longrightarrow> B \<and> A)"} \\

  @{text "(A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A \<and> B) \<Longrightarrow> (A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A) \<Longrightarrow> #\<dots>"} & @{text "(resolution A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> B)"} \\

  @{text "(A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A) \<Longrightarrow> #\<dots>"} & @{text "(assumption)"} \\

  @{text "(A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> B \<and> A) \<Longrightarrow> #\<dots>"} & @{text "(resolution A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A)"} \\

  @{text "#\<dots>"} & @{text "(assumption)"} \\

  @{text "A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> B \<and> A"} & @{text "(finish)"} \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip

  }

  Compositions of @{inference assumption} after @{inference

  resolution} occurs quite often, typically in elimination steps.

  Traditional Isabelle tactics accommodate this by a combined

  @{inference_def elim_resolution} principle.  In contrast, Isar uses

  a slightly more refined combination, where the assumptions to be

  closed are marked explicitly, using again the protective marker

  @{text "#"}:

  \[

  \infer[(@{inference refinement})]

  {@{text "(\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> \<^vec>G' (\<^vec>a \<^vec>x))\<vartheta> \<Longrightarrow> C\<vartheta>"}}

  {\begin{tabular}{rl}

    @{text "sub\<dash>proof:"} &

    @{text "\<^vec>G \<^vec>a \<Longrightarrow> B \<^vec>a"} \\

    @{text "goal:"} &

    @{text "(\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>H \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> B' \<^vec>x) \<Longrightarrow> C"} \\

    @{text "goal unifier:"} &

    @{text "(\<lambda>\<^vec>x. B (\<^vec>a \<^vec>x))\<vartheta> = B'\<vartheta>"} \\

    @{text "assm unifiers:"} &

    @{text "(\<lambda>\<^vec>x. G\<^sub>j (\<^vec>a \<^vec>x))\<vartheta> = #H\<^sub>i\<vartheta>"} \\

    & \quad (for each marked @{text "G\<^sub>j"} some @{text "#H\<^sub>i"}) \\

   \end{tabular}}

  \]

  \noindent Here the @{text "sub\<dash>proof"} rule stems from the

  main @{command fix}-@{command assume}-@{command show} outline of

  Isar (cf.\ \secref{sec:framework-subproof}): each assumption

  indicated in the text results in a marked premise @{text "G"} above.

  The marking enforces resolution against one of the sub-goal's

  premises.  Consequently, @{command fix}-@{command assume}-@{command

  show} enables to fit the result of a sub-proof quite robustly into a

  pending sub-goal, while maintaining a good measure of flexibility.

*}

section {* The Isar proof language \label{sec:framework-isar} *}

text {*

  Structured proofs are presented as high-level expressions for

  composing entities of Pure (propositions, facts, and goals).  The

  Isar proof language allows to organize reasoning within the

  underlying rule calculus of Pure, but Isar is not another logical

  calculus!

  Isar is an exercise in sound minimalism.  Approximately half of the

  language is introduced as primitive, the rest defined as derived

  concepts.  The following grammar describes the core language

  (category @{text "proof"}), which is embedded into theory

  specification elements such as @{command theorem}; see also

  \secref{sec:framework-stmt} for the separate category @{text

  "statement"}.

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{rcl}

    @{text "theory\<dash>stmt"} & = & @{command "theorem"}~@{text "statement proof  |"}~~@{command "definition"}~@{text "\<dots>  |  \<dots>"} \\[1ex]

    @{text "proof"} & = & @{text "prfx\<^sup>*"}~@{command "proof"}~@{text "method\<^sup>? stmt\<^sup>*"}~@{command "qed"}~@{text "method\<^sup>?"} \\[1ex]

    @{text prfx} & = & @{command "using"}~@{text "facts"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command "unfolding"}~@{text "facts"} \\

    @{text stmt} & = & @{command "{"}~@{text "stmt\<^sup>*"}~@{command "}"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command "next"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command "note"}~@{text "name = facts"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command "let"}~@{text "term = term"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command "fix"}~@{text "var\<^sup>+"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command assume}~@{text "\<guillemotleft>inference\<guillemotright> name: props"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command "then"}@{text "\<^sup>?"}~@{text goal} \\

    @{text goal} & = & @{command "have"}~@{text "name: props proof"} \\

    & @{text "|"} & @{command "show"}~@{text "name: props proof"} \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip Simultaneous propositions or facts may be separated by the

  @{keyword "and"} keyword.

  \medskip The syntax for terms and propositions is inherited from

  Pure (and the object-logic).  A @{text "pattern"} is a @{text

  "term"} with schematic variables, to be bound by higher-order

  matching.

  \medskip Facts may be referenced by name or proposition.  For

  example, the result of ``@{command have}~@{text "a: A \<langle>proof\<rangle>"}''

  becomes available both as @{text "a"} and

  \isacharbackquoteopen@{text "A"}\isacharbackquoteclose.  Moreover,

  fact expressions may involve attributes that modify either the

  theorem or the background context.  For example, the expression

  ``@{text "a [OF b]"}'' refers to the composition of two facts

  according to the @{inference resolution} inference of

  \secref{sec:framework-resolution}, while ``@{text "a [intro]"}''

  declares a fact as introduction rule in the context.

  The special fact called ``@{fact this}'' always refers to the last

  result, as produced by @{command note}, @{command assume}, @{command

  have}, or @{command show}.  Since @{command note} occurs

  frequently together with @{command then} we provide some

  abbreviations:

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{rcl}

    @{command from}~@{text a} & @{text "\<equiv>"} & @{command note}~@{text a}~@{command then} \\

    @{command with}~@{text a} & @{text "\<equiv>"} & @{command from}~@{text "a \<AND> this"} \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip

  The @{text "method"} category is essentially a parameter and may be

  populated later.  Methods use the facts indicated by @{command

  "then"} or @{command using}, and then operate on the goal state.

  Some basic methods are predefined: ``@{method "-"}'' leaves the goal

  unchanged, ``@{method this}'' applies the facts as rules to the

  goal, ``@{method "rule"}'' applies the facts to another rule and the

  result to the goal (both ``@{method this}'' and ``@{method rule}''

  refer to @{inference resolution} of

  \secref{sec:framework-resolution}).  The secondary arguments to

  ``@{method rule}'' may be specified explicitly as in ``@{text "(rule

  a)"}'', or picked from the context.  In the latter case, the system

  first tries rules declared as @{attribute (Pure) elim} or

  @{attribute (Pure) dest}, followed by those declared as @{attribute

  (Pure) intro}.

  The default method for @{command proof} is ``@{method rule}''

  (arguments picked from the context), for @{command qed} it is

  ``@{method "-"}''.  Further abbreviations for terminal proof steps

  are ``@{command "by"}~@{text "method\<^sub>1 method\<^sub>2"}'' for

  ``@{command proof}~@{text "method\<^sub>1"}~@{command qed}~@{text

  "method\<^sub>2"}'', and ``@{command ".."}'' for ``@{command

  "by"}~@{method rule}, and ``@{command "."}'' for ``@{command

  "by"}~@{method this}''.  The @{command unfolding} element operates

  directly on the current facts and goal by applying equalities.

  \medskip Block structure can be indicated explicitly by ``@{command

  "{"}~@{text "\<dots>"}~@{command "}"}'', although the body of a sub-proof

  already involves implicit nesting.  In any case, @{command next}

  jumps into the next section of a block, i.e.\ it acts like closing

  an implicit block scope and opening another one; there is no direct

  correspondence to subgoals here.

  The remaining elements @{command fix} and @{command assume} build up

  a local context (see \secref{sec:framework-context}), while

  @{command show} refines a pending sub-goal by the rule resulting

  from a nested sub-proof (see \secref{sec:framework-subproof}).

  Further derived concepts will support calculational reasoning (see

  \secref{sec:framework-calc}).

*}

subsection {* Context elements \label{sec:framework-context} *}

text {*

  In judgments @{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<phi>"} of the primitive framework, @{text "\<Gamma>"}

  essentially acts like a proof context.  Isar elaborates this idea

  towards a higher-level notion, with additional information for

  type-inference, term abbreviations, local facts, hypotheses etc.

  The element @{command fix}~@{text "x :: \<alpha>"} declares a local

  parameter, i.e.\ an arbitrary-but-fixed entity of a given type; in

  results exported from the context, @{text "x"} may become anything.

  The @{command assume}~@{text "\<guillemotleft>inference\<guillemotright>"} element provides a

  general interface to hypotheses: ``@{command assume}~@{text

  "\<guillemotleft>inference\<guillemotright> A"}'' produces @{text "A \<turnstile> A"} locally, while the

  included inference tells how to discharge @{text A} from results

  @{text "A \<turnstile> B"} later on.  There is no user-syntax for @{text

  "\<guillemotleft>inference\<guillemotright>"}, i.e.\ it may only occur internally when derived

  commands are defined in ML.

  At the user-level, the default inference for @{command assume} is

  @{inference discharge} as given below.  The additional variants

  @{command presume} and @{command def} are defined as follows:

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{rcl}

    @{command presume}~@{text A} & @{text "\<equiv>"} & @{command assume}~@{text "\<guillemotleft>weak\<dash>discharge\<guillemotright> A"} \\

    @{command def}~@{text "x \<equiv> a"} & @{text "\<equiv>"} & @{command fix}~@{text x}~@{command assume}~@{text "\<guillemotleft>expansion\<guillemotright> x \<equiv> a"} \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip

  \[

  \infer[(@{inference_def discharge})]{@{text "\<strut>\<Gamma> - A \<turnstile> #A \<Longrightarrow> B"}}{@{text "\<strut>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B"}}

  \]

  \[

  \infer[(@{inference_def "weak\<dash>discharge"})]{@{text "\<strut>\<Gamma> - A \<turnstile> A \<Longrightarrow> B"}}{@{text "\<strut>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B"}}

  \]

  \[

  \infer[(@{inference_def expansion})]{@{text "\<strut>\<Gamma> - (x \<equiv> a) \<turnstile> B a"}}{@{text "\<strut>\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B x"}}

  \]

  \medskip Note that @{inference discharge} and @{inference

  "weak\<dash>discharge"} differ in the marker for @{prop A}, which is

  relevant when the result of a @{command fix}-@{command

  assume}-@{command show} outline is composed with a pending goal,

  cf.\ \secref{sec:framework-subproof}.

  The most interesting derived context element in Isar is @{command

  obtain} \cite[\S5.3]{Wenzel-PhD}, which supports generalized

  elimination steps in a purely forward manner.  The @{command obtain}

  command takes a specification of parameters @{text "\<^vec>x"} and

  assumptions @{text "\<^vec>A"} to be added to the context, together

  with a proof of a case rule stating that this extension is

  conservative (i.e.\ may be removed from closed results later on):

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{l}

  @{text "\<langle>facts\<rangle>"}~~@{command obtain}~@{text "\<^vec>x \<WHERE> \<^vec>A \<^vec>x  \<langle>proof\<rangle> \<equiv>"} \\[0.5ex]

  \quad @{command have}~@{text "case: \<And>thesis. (\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>A \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> thesis) \<Longrightarrow> thesis\<rangle>"} \\

  \quad @{command proof}~@{method "-"} \\

  \qquad @{command fix}~@{text thesis} \\

  \qquad @{command assume}~@{text "[intro]: \<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>A \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> thesis"} \\

  \qquad @{command show}~@{text thesis}~@{command using}~@{text "\<langle>facts\<rangle> \<langle>proof\<rangle>"} \\

  \quad @{command qed} \\

  \quad @{command fix}~@{text "\<^vec>x"}~@{command assume}~@{text "\<guillemotleft>elimination case\<guillemotright> \<^vec>A \<^vec>x"} \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip

  \[

  \infer[(@{inference elimination})]{@{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> B"}}{

    \begin{tabular}{rl}

    @{text "case:"} &

    @{text "\<Gamma> \<turnstile> \<And>thesis. (\<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>A \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> thesis) \<Longrightarrow> thesis"} \\[0.2ex]

    @{text "result:"} &

    @{text "\<Gamma> \<union> \<^vec>A \<^vec>y \<turnstile> B"} \\[0.2ex]

    \end{tabular}}

  \]

  \noindent Here the name ``@{text thesis}'' is a specific convention

  for an arbitrary-but-fixed proposition; in the primitive natural

  deduction rules shown before we have occasionally used @{text C}.

  The whole statement of ``@{command obtain}~@{text x}~@{keyword

  "where"}~@{text "A x"}'' may be read as a claim that @{text "A x"}

  may be assumed for some arbitrary-but-fixed @{text "x"}.  Also note

  that ``@{command obtain}~@{text "A \<AND> B"}'' without parameters

  is similar to ``@{command have}~@{text "A \<AND> B"}'', but the

  latter involves multiple sub-goals.

  \medskip The subsequent Isar proof texts explain all context

  elements introduced above using the formal proof language itself.

  After finishing a local proof within a block, we indicate the

  exported result via @{command note}.

*}

(*<*)

theorem True

proof

(*>*)

  txt_raw {* \begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth} *}

  {

    fix x

    have "B x" sorry %noproof

  }

  note `\<And>x. B x`

  txt_raw {* \end{minipage}\quad\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth} *}(*<*)next(*>*)

  {

    assume A

    have B sorry %noproof

  }

  note `A \<Longrightarrow> B`

  txt_raw {* \end{minipage}\\[3ex]\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth} *}(*<*)next(*>*)

  {

    def x \<equiv> a

    have "B x" sorry %noproof

  }

  note `B a`

  txt_raw {* \end{minipage}\quad\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth} *}(*<*)next(*>*)

  {

    obtain x where "A x" sorry %noproof

    have B sorry %noproof

  }

  note `B`

  txt_raw {* \end{minipage} *}

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text {*

  \bigskip\noindent This illustrates the meaning of Isar context

  elements without goals getting in between.

*}

subsection {* Structured statements \label{sec:framework-stmt} *}

text {*

  The category @{text "statement"} of top-level theorem specifications

  is defined as follows:

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{rcl}

  @{text "statement"} & @{text "\<equiv>"} & @{text "name: props \<AND> \<dots>"} \\

  & @{text "|"} & @{text "context\<^sup>* conclusion"} \\[0.5ex]

  @{text "context"} & @{text "\<equiv>"} & @{text "\<FIXES> vars \<AND> \<dots>"} \\

  & @{text "|"} & @{text "\<ASSUMES> name: props \<AND> \<dots>"} \\

  @{text "conclusion"} & @{text "\<equiv>"} & @{text "\<SHOWS> name: props \<AND> \<dots>"} \\

  & @{text "|"} & @{text "\<OBTAINS> vars \<AND> \<dots> \<WHERE> name: props \<AND> \<dots>"} \\

  & & \quad @{text "\<BBAR> \<dots>"} \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip\noindent A simple @{text "statement"} consists of named

  propositions.  The full form admits local context elements followed

  by the actual conclusions, such as ``@{keyword "fixes"}~@{text

  x}~@{keyword "assumes"}~@{text "A x"}~@{keyword "shows"}~@{text "B

  x"}''.  The final result emerges as a Pure rule after discharging

  the context: @{prop "\<And>x. A x \<Longrightarrow> B x"}.

  The @{keyword "obtains"} variant is another abbreviation defined

  below; unlike @{command obtain} (cf.\

  \secref{sec:framework-context}) there may be several ``cases''

  separated by ``@{text "\<BBAR>"}'', each consisting of several

  parameters (@{text "vars"}) and several premises (@{text "props"}).

  This specifies multi-branch elimination rules.

  \medskip

  \begin{tabular}{l}

  @{text "\<OBTAINS> \<^vec>x \<WHERE> \<^vec>A \<^vec>x   \<BBAR>   \<dots>   \<equiv>"} \\[0.5ex]

  \quad @{text "\<FIXES> thesis"} \\

  \quad @{text "\<ASSUMES> [intro]: \<And>\<^vec>x. \<^vec>A \<^vec>x \<Longrightarrow> thesis  \<AND>  \<dots>"} \\

  \quad @{text "\<SHOWS> thesis"} \\

  \end{tabular}

  \medskip

  Presenting structured statements in such an ``open'' format usually

  simplifies the subsequent proof, because the outer structure of the

  problem is already laid out directly.  E.g.\ consider the following

  canonical patterns for @{text "\<SHOWS>"} and @{text "\<OBTAINS>"},

  respectively:

*}

text_raw {*\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}*}

theorem

  fixes x and y

  assumes "A x" and "B y"

  shows "C x y"

proof -

  from `A x` and `B y`

  show "C x y" sorry %noproof

qed

text_raw {*\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}*}

theorem

  obtains x and y

  where "A x" and "B y"

proof -

  have "A a" and "B b" sorry %noproof

  then show thesis ..

qed

text_raw {*\end{minipage}*}

text {*

  \medskip\noindent Here local facts \isacharbackquoteopen@{text "A

  x"}\isacharbackquoteclose\ and \isacharbackquoteopen@{text "B

  y"}\isacharbackquoteclose\ are referenced immediately; there is no

  need to decompose the logical rule structure again.  In the second

  proof the final ``@{command then}~@{command show}~@{text

  thesis}~@{command ".."}''  involves the local rule case @{text "\<And>x

  y. A x \<Longrightarrow> B y \<Longrightarrow> thesis"} for the particular instance of terms @{text

  "a"} and @{text "b"} produced in the body.

*}

subsection {* Structured proof refinement \label{sec:framework-subproof} *}

text {*

  By breaking up the grammar for the Isar proof language, we may

  understand a proof text as a linear sequence of individual proof

  commands.  These are interpreted as transitions of the Isar virtual

  machine (Isar/VM), which operates on a block-structured

  configuration in single steps.  This allows users to write proof

  texts in an incremental manner, and inspect intermediate

  configurations for debugging.

  The basic idea is analogous to evaluating algebraic expressions on a

  stack machine: @{text "(a + b) \<cdot> c"} then corresponds to a sequence

  of single transitions for each symbol @{text "(, a, +, b, ), \<cdot>, c"}.

  In Isar the algebraic values are facts or goals, and the operations

  are inferences.

  \medskip The Isar/VM state maintains a stack of nodes, each node

  contains the local proof context, the linguistic mode, and a pending

  goal (optional).  The mode determines the type of transition that

  may be performed next, it essentially alternates between forward and

  backward reasoning, with an intermediate stage for chained facts

  (see \figref{fig:isar-vm}).

  \begin{figure}[htb]

  \begin{center}

  \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Thy/document/isar-vm}

  \end{center}

  \caption{Isar/VM modes}\label{fig:isar-vm}

  \end{figure}

  For example, in @{text "state"} mode Isar acts like a mathematical

  scratch-pad, accepting declarations like @{command fix}, @{command

  assume}, and claims like @{command have}, @{command show}.  A goal

  statement changes the mode to @{text "prove"}, which means that we

  may now refine the problem via @{command unfolding} or @{command

  proof}.  Then we are again in @{text "state"} mode of a proof body,

  which may issue @{command show} statements to solve pending

  sub-goals.  A concluding @{command qed} will return to the original

  @{text "state"} mode one level upwards.  The subsequent Isar/VM

  trace indicates block structure, linguistic mode, goal state, and

  inferences:

*}

text_raw {* \begingroup\footnotesize *}

(*<*)example_proof

(*>*)

  txt_raw {* \begin{minipage}[t]{0.18\textwidth} *}

  have "A \<longrightarrow> B"

  proof

    assume A

    show B

      sorry %noproof

  qed

  txt_raw {* \end{minipage}\quad

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.06\textwidth}

@{text "begin"} \\

\\

\\

@{text "begin"} \\

@{text "end"} \\

@{text "end"} \\

\end{minipage}

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.08\textwidth}

@{text "prove"} \\

@{text "state"} \\

@{text "state"} \\

@{text "prove"} \\

@{text "state"} \\

@{text "state"} \\

\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}[t]{0.35\textwidth}

@{text "(A \<longrightarrow> B) \<Longrightarrow> #(A \<longrightarrow> B)"} \\

@{text "(A \<Longrightarrow> B) \<Longrightarrow> #(A \<longrightarrow> B)"} \\

\\

\\

@{text "#(A \<longrightarrow> B)"} \\

@{text "A \<longrightarrow> B"} \\

\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}[t]{0.4\textwidth}

@{text "(init)"} \\

@{text "(resolution impI)"} \\

\\

\\

@{text "(refinement #A \<Longrightarrow> B)"} \\

@{text "(finish)"} \\

\end{minipage} *}

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text_raw {* \endgroup *}

text {*

  \noindent Here the @{inference refinement} inference from

  \secref{sec:framework-resolution} mediates composition of Isar

  sub-proofs nicely.  Observe that this principle incorporates some

  degree of freedom in proof composition.  In particular, the proof

  body allows parameters and assumptions to be re-ordered, or commuted

  according to Hereditary Harrop Form.  Moreover, context elements

  that are not used in a sub-proof may be omitted altogether.  For

  example:

*}

text_raw {*\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}*}

(*<*)

example_proof

(*>*)

  have "\<And>x y. A x \<Longrightarrow> B y \<Longrightarrow> C x y"

  proof -

    fix x and y

    assume "A x" and "B y"

    show "C x y" sorry %noproof

  qed

txt_raw {*\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}*}

(*<*)

next

(*>*)

  have "\<And>x y. A x \<Longrightarrow> B y \<Longrightarrow> C x y"

  proof -

    fix x assume "A x"

    fix y assume "B y"

    show "C x y" sorry %noproof

  qed

txt_raw {*\end{minipage}\\[3ex]\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}*}

(*<*)

next

(*>*)

  have "\<And>x y. A x \<Longrightarrow> B y \<Longrightarrow> C x y"

  proof -

    fix y assume "B y"

    fix x assume "A x"

    show "C x y" sorry

  qed

txt_raw {*\end{minipage}\begin{minipage}{0.5\textwidth}*}

(*<*)

next

(*>*)

  have "\<And>x y. A x \<Longrightarrow> B y \<Longrightarrow> C x y"

  proof -

    fix y assume "B y"

    fix x

    show "C x y" sorry

  qed

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text_raw {*\end{minipage}*}

text {*

  \medskip\noindent Such ``peephole optimizations'' of Isar texts are

  practically important to improve readability, by rearranging

  contexts elements according to the natural flow of reasoning in the

  body, while still observing the overall scoping rules.

  \medskip This illustrates the basic idea of structured proof

  processing in Isar.  The main mechanisms are based on natural

  deduction rule composition within the Pure framework.  In

  particular, there are no direct operations on goal states within the

  proof body.  Moreover, there is no hidden automated reasoning

  involved, just plain unification.

*}

subsection {* Calculational reasoning \label{sec:framework-calc} *}

text {*

  The existing Isar infrastructure is sufficiently flexible to support

  calculational reasoning (chains of transitivity steps) as derived

  concept.  The generic proof elements introduced below depend on

  rules declared as @{attribute trans} in the context.  It is left to

  the object-logic to provide a suitable rule collection for mixed

  relations of @{text "="}, @{text "<"}, @{text "\<le>"}, @{text "\<subset>"},

  @{text "\<subseteq>"} etc.  Due to the flexibility of rule composition

  (\secref{sec:framework-resolution}), substitution of equals by

  equals is covered as well, even substitution of inequalities

  involving monotonicity conditions; see also \cite[\S6]{Wenzel-PhD}

  and \cite{Bauer-Wenzel:2001}.

  The generic calculational mechanism is based on the observation that

  rules such as @{text "trans:"}~@{prop "x = y \<Longrightarrow> y = z \<Longrightarrow> x = z"}

  proceed from the premises towards the conclusion in a deterministic

  fashion.  Thus we may reason in forward mode, feeding intermediate

  results into rules selected from the context.  The course of

  reasoning is organized by maintaining a secondary fact called

  ``@{fact calculation}'', apart from the primary ``@{fact this}''

  already provided by the Isar primitives.  In the definitions below,

  @{attribute OF} refers to @{inference resolution}

  (\secref{sec:framework-resolution}) with multiple rule arguments,

  and @{text "trans"} represents to a suitable rule from the context:

  \begin{matharray}{rcl}

    @{command "also"}@{text "\<^sub>0"} & \equiv & @{command "note"}~@{text "calculation = this"} \\

    @{command "also"}@{text "\<^sub>n\<^sub>+\<^sub>1"} & \equiv & @{command "note"}~@{text "calculation = trans [OF calculation this]"} \\[0.5ex]

    @{command "finally"} & \equiv & @{command "also"}~@{command "from"}~@{text calculation} \\

  \end{matharray}

  \noindent The start of a calculation is determined implicitly in the

  text: here @{command also} sets @{fact calculation} to the current

  result; any subsequent occurrence will update @{fact calculation} by

  combination with the next result and a transitivity rule.  The

  calculational sequence is concluded via @{command finally}, where

  the final result is exposed for use in a concluding claim.

  Here is a canonical proof pattern, using @{command have} to

  establish the intermediate results:

*}

(*<*)

example_proof

(*>*)

  have "a = b" sorry

  also have "\<dots> = c" sorry

  also have "\<dots> = d" sorry

  finally have "a = d" .

(*<*)

qed

(*>*)

text {*