\chapter{Tactics} \label{tactics}

 \index{tactics|(}

 \section{Other basic tactics}

 \subsection{Inserting premises and facts}\label{cut_facts_tac}

 \index{tactics!for inserting facts}\index{assumptions!inserting}

 \begin{ttbox} 

 cut_facts_tac : thm list -> int -> tactic

 cut_inst_tac  : (string*string)list -> thm -> int -> tactic

 subgoal_tac   : string -> int -> tactic

 subgoals_tac  : string list -> int -> tactic

 \end{ttbox}

 These tactics add assumptions to a subgoal.

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{cut_facts_tac} {\it thms} {\it i}] 

   adds the {\it thms} as new assumptions to subgoal~$i$.  Once they have

   been inserted as assumptions, they become subject to tactics such as {\tt

     eresolve_tac} and {\tt rewrite_goals_tac}.  Only rules with no premises

   are inserted: Isabelle cannot use assumptions that contain $\Imp$

   or~$\Forall$.  Sometimes the theorems are premises of a rule being

   derived, returned by~{\tt goal}; instead of calling this tactic, you

   could state the goal with an outermost meta-quantifier.

 \item[\ttindexbold{cut_inst_tac} {\it insts} {\it thm} {\it i}]

   instantiates the {\it thm} with the instantiations {\it insts}, as

   described in {\S}\ref{res_inst_tac}.  It adds the resulting theorem as a

   new assumption to subgoal~$i$. 

 \item[\ttindexbold{subgoal_tac} {\it formula} {\it i}] 

 adds the {\it formula} as an assumption to subgoal~$i$, and inserts the same

 {\it formula} as a new subgoal, $i+1$.

 \item[\ttindexbold{subgoals_tac} {\it formulae} {\it i}] 

   uses {\tt subgoal_tac} to add the members of the list of {\it

     formulae} as assumptions to subgoal~$i$. 

 \end{ttdescription}

 \subsection{``Putting off'' a subgoal}

 \begin{ttbox} 

 defer_tac : int -> tactic

 \end{ttbox}

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{defer_tac} {\it i}] 

   moves subgoal~$i$ to the last position in the proof state.  It can be

   useful when correcting a proof script: if the tactic given for subgoal~$i$

   fails, calling {\tt defer_tac} instead will let you continue with the rest

   of the script.

   The tactic fails if subgoal~$i$ does not exist or if the proof state

   contains type unknowns. 

 \end{ttdescription}

 \subsection{Definitions and meta-level rewriting} \label{sec:rewrite_goals}

 \index{tactics!meta-rewriting|bold}\index{meta-rewriting|bold}

 \index{definitions}

 Definitions in Isabelle have the form $t\equiv u$, where $t$ is typically a

 constant or a constant applied to a list of variables, for example $\it

 sqr(n)\equiv n\times n$.  Conditional definitions, $\phi\Imp t\equiv u$,

 are also supported.  {\bf Unfolding} the definition ${t\equiv u}$ means using

 it as a rewrite rule, replacing~$t$ by~$u$ throughout a theorem.  {\bf

 Folding} $t\equiv u$ means replacing~$u$ by~$t$.  Rewriting continues until

 no rewrites are applicable to any subterm.

 There are rules for unfolding and folding definitions; Isabelle does not do

 this automatically.  The corresponding tactics rewrite the proof state,

 yielding a single next state.  See also the {\tt goalw} command, which is the

 easiest way of handling definitions.

 \begin{ttbox} 

 rewrite_goals_tac : thm list -> tactic

 rewrite_tac       : thm list -> tactic

 fold_goals_tac    : thm list -> tactic

 fold_tac          : thm list -> tactic

 \end{ttbox}

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{rewrite_goals_tac} {\it defs}]  

 unfolds the {\it defs} throughout the subgoals of the proof state, while

 leaving the main goal unchanged.  Use \ttindex{SELECT_GOAL} to restrict it to a

 particular subgoal.

 \item[\ttindexbold{rewrite_tac} {\it defs}]  

 unfolds the {\it defs} throughout the proof state, including the main goal

 --- not normally desirable!

 \item[\ttindexbold{fold_goals_tac} {\it defs}]  

 folds the {\it defs} throughout the subgoals of the proof state, while

 leaving the main goal unchanged.

 \item[\ttindexbold{fold_tac} {\it defs}]  

 folds the {\it defs} throughout the proof state.

 \end{ttdescription}

 \begin{warn}

   These tactics only cope with definitions expressed as meta-level

   equalities ($\equiv$).  More general equivalences are handled by the

   simplifier, provided that it is set up appropriately for your logic

   (see Chapter~\ref{chap:simplification}).

 \end{warn}

 \subsection{Theorems useful with tactics}

 \index{theorems!of pure theory}

 \begin{ttbox} 

 asm_rl: thm 

 cut_rl: thm 

 \end{ttbox}

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\tdx{asm_rl}] 

 is $\psi\Imp\psi$.  Under elim-resolution it does proof by assumption, and

 \hbox{\tt eresolve_tac (asm_rl::{\it thms}) {\it i}} is equivalent to

 \begin{ttbox} 

 assume_tac {\it i}  ORELSE  eresolve_tac {\it thms} {\it i}

 \end{ttbox}

 \item[\tdx{cut_rl}] 

 is $\List{\psi\Imp\theta,\psi}\Imp\theta$.  It is useful for inserting

 assumptions; it underlies {\tt forward_tac}, {\tt cut_facts_tac}

 and {\tt subgoal_tac}.

 \end{ttdescription}

 \section{Obscure tactics}

 \subsection{Manipulating assumptions}

 \index{assumptions!rotating}

 \begin{ttbox} 

 thin_tac   : string -> int -> tactic

 rotate_tac : int -> int -> tactic

 \end{ttbox}

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{thin_tac} {\it formula} $i$]  

 \index{assumptions!deleting}

 deletes the specified assumption from subgoal $i$.  Often the assumption

 can be abbreviated, replacing subformul{\ae} by unknowns; the first matching

 assumption will be deleted.  Removing useless assumptions from a subgoal

 increases its readability and can make search tactics run faster.

 \item[\ttindexbold{rotate_tac} $n$ $i$]  

 \index{assumptions!rotating}

 rotates the assumptions of subgoal $i$ by $n$ positions: from right to left

 if $n$ is positive, and from left to right if $n$ is negative.  This is 

 sometimes necessary in connection with \ttindex{asm_full_simp_tac}, which 

 processes assumptions from left to right.

 \end{ttdescription}

 \subsection{Tidying the proof state}

 \index{duplicate subgoals!removing}

 \index{parameters!removing unused}

 \index{flex-flex constraints}

 \begin{ttbox} 

 distinct_subgoals_tac : tactic

 prune_params_tac      : tactic

 flexflex_tac          : tactic

 \end{ttbox}

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{distinct_subgoals_tac}] removes duplicate subgoals from a

   proof state.  (These arise especially in ZF, where the subgoals are

   essentially type constraints.)

 \item[\ttindexbold{prune_params_tac}]  

   removes unused parameters from all subgoals of the proof state.  It works

   by rewriting with the theorem $(\Forall x. V)\equiv V$.  This tactic can

   make the proof state more readable.  It is used with

   \ttindex{rule_by_tactic} to simplify the resulting theorem.

 \item[\ttindexbold{flexflex_tac}]  

   removes all flex-flex pairs from the proof state by applying the trivial

   unifier.  This drastic step loses information, and should only be done as

   the last step of a proof.

   Flex-flex constraints arise from difficult cases of higher-order

   unification.  To prevent this, use \ttindex{res_inst_tac} to instantiate

   some variables in a rule~({\S}\ref{res_inst_tac}).  Normally flex-flex

   constraints can be ignored; they often disappear as unknowns get

   instantiated.

 \end{ttdescription}

 \subsection{Composition: resolution without lifting}

 \index{tactics!for composition}

 \begin{ttbox}

 compose_tac: (bool * thm * int) -> int -> tactic

 \end{ttbox}

 {\bf Composing} two rules means resolving them without prior lifting or

 renaming of unknowns.  This low-level operation, which underlies the

 resolution tactics, may occasionally be useful for special effects.

 A typical application is \ttindex{res_inst_tac}, which lifts and instantiates a

 rule, then passes the result to {\tt compose_tac}.

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{compose_tac} ($flag$, $rule$, $m$) $i$] 

 refines subgoal~$i$ using $rule$, without lifting.  The $rule$ is taken to

 have the form $\List{\psi@1; \ldots; \psi@m} \Imp \psi$, where $\psi$ need

 not be atomic; thus $m$ determines the number of new subgoals.  If

 $flag$ is {\tt true} then it performs elim-resolution --- it solves the

 first premise of~$rule$ by assumption and deletes that assumption.

 \end{ttdescription}

 \section{*Managing lots of rules}

 These operations are not intended for interactive use.  They are concerned

 with the processing of large numbers of rules in automatic proof

 strategies.  Higher-order resolution involving a long list of rules is

 slow.  Filtering techniques can shorten the list of rules given to

 resolution, and can also detect whether a subgoal is too flexible,

 with too many rules applicable.

 \subsection{Combined resolution and elim-resolution} \label{biresolve_tac}

 \index{tactics!resolution}

 \begin{ttbox} 

 biresolve_tac   : (bool*thm)list -> int -> tactic

 bimatch_tac     : (bool*thm)list -> int -> tactic

 subgoals_of_brl : bool*thm -> int

 lessb           : (bool*thm) * (bool*thm) -> bool

 \end{ttbox}

 {\bf Bi-resolution} takes a list of $\it (flag,rule)$ pairs.  For each

 pair, it applies resolution if the flag is~{\tt false} and

 elim-resolution if the flag is~{\tt true}.  A single tactic call handles a

 mixture of introduction and elimination rules.

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{biresolve_tac} {\it brls} {\it i}] 

 refines the proof state by resolution or elim-resolution on each rule, as

 indicated by its flag.  It affects subgoal~$i$ of the proof state.

 \item[\ttindexbold{bimatch_tac}] 

 is like {\tt biresolve_tac}, but performs matching: unknowns in the

 proof state are never updated (see~{\S}\ref{match_tac}).

 \item[\ttindexbold{subgoals_of_brl}({\it flag},{\it rule})] 

 returns the number of new subgoals that bi-res\-o\-lu\-tion would yield for the

 pair (if applied to a suitable subgoal).  This is $n$ if the flag is

 {\tt false} and $n-1$ if the flag is {\tt true}, where $n$ is the number

 of premises of the rule.  Elim-resolution yields one fewer subgoal than

 ordinary resolution because it solves the major premise by assumption.

 \item[\ttindexbold{lessb} ({\it brl1},{\it brl2})] 

 returns the result of 

 \begin{ttbox}

 subgoals_of_brl{\it brl1} < subgoals_of_brl{\it brl2}

 \end{ttbox}

 \end{ttdescription}

 Note that \hbox{\tt sort lessb {\it brls}} sorts a list of $\it

 (flag,rule)$ pairs by the number of new subgoals they will yield.  Thus,

 those that yield the fewest subgoals should be tried first.

 \subsection{Discrimination nets for fast resolution}\label{filt_resolve_tac}

 \index{discrimination nets|bold}

 \index{tactics!resolution}

 \begin{ttbox} 

 net_resolve_tac  : thm list -> int -> tactic

 net_match_tac    : thm list -> int -> tactic

 net_biresolve_tac: (bool*thm) list -> int -> tactic

 net_bimatch_tac  : (bool*thm) list -> int -> tactic

 filt_resolve_tac : thm list -> int -> int -> tactic

 could_unify      : term*term->bool

 filter_thms      : (term*term->bool) -> int*term*thm list -> thm{\ts}list

 \end{ttbox}

 The module {\tt Net} implements a discrimination net data structure for

 fast selection of rules \cite[Chapter 14]{charniak80}.  A term is

 classified by the symbol list obtained by flattening it in preorder.

 The flattening takes account of function applications, constants, and free

 and bound variables; it identifies all unknowns and also regards

 \index{lambda abs@$\lambda$-abstractions}

 $\lambda$-abstractions as unknowns, since they could $\eta$-contract to

 anything.  

 A discrimination net serves as a polymorphic dictionary indexed by terms.

 The module provides various functions for inserting and removing items from

 nets.  It provides functions for returning all items whose term could match

 or unify with a target term.  The matching and unification tests are

 overly lax (due to the identifications mentioned above) but they serve as

 useful filters.

 A net can store introduction rules indexed by their conclusion, and

 elimination rules indexed by their major premise.  Isabelle provides

 several functions for `compiling' long lists of rules into fast

 resolution tactics.  When supplied with a list of theorems, these functions

 build a discrimination net; the net is used when the tactic is applied to a

 goal.  To avoid repeatedly constructing the nets, use currying: bind the

 resulting tactics to \ML{} identifiers.

 \begin{ttdescription}

 \item[\ttindexbold{net_resolve_tac} {\it thms}] 

 builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

 resolve_tac}.

 \item[\ttindexbold{net_match_tac} {\it thms}] 

 builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

 match_tac}.

 \item[\ttindexbold{net_biresolve_tac} {\it brls}] 

 builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

 biresolve_tac}.

 \item[\ttindexbold{net_bimatch_tac} {\it brls}] 

 builds a discrimination net to obtain the effect of a similar call to {\tt

 bimatch_tac}.

 \item[\ttindexbold{filt_resolve_tac} {\it thms} {\it maxr} {\it i}] 

 uses discrimination nets to extract the {\it thms} that are applicable to

 subgoal~$i$.  If more than {\it maxr\/} theorems are applicable then the

 tactic fails.  Otherwise it calls {\tt resolve_tac}.  

 This tactic helps avoid runaway instantiation of unknowns, for example in

 type inference.

 \item[\ttindexbold{could_unify} ({\it t},{\it u})] 

 returns {\tt false} if~$t$ and~$u$ are `obviously' non-unifiable, and

 otherwise returns~{\tt true}.  It assumes all variables are distinct,

 reporting that {\tt ?a=?a} may unify with {\tt 0=1}.

 \item[\ttindexbold{filter_thms} $could\; (limit,prem,thms)$] 

 returns the list of potentially resolvable rules (in {\it thms\/}) for the

 subgoal {\it prem}, using the predicate {\it could\/} to compare the

 conclusion of the subgoal with the conclusion of each rule.  The resulting list

 is no longer than {\it limit}.

 \end{ttdescription}

 \index{tactics|)}

 %%% Local Variables: 

 %%% mode: latex

 %%% TeX-master: "ref"

 %%% End: