\documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}

 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

 \usepackage{amsmath}

 \usepackage{amssymb}

 \usepackage[english,french]{babel}

 \usepackage{color}

 \usepackage{graphicx}

 %\usepackage{mathpazo}

 \usepackage{multicol}

 \usepackage{stmaryrd}

 %\usepackage[scaled=.85]{beramono}

 \usepackage{../iman,../pdfsetup}

 %\oddsidemargin=4.6mm

 %\evensidemargin=4.6mm

 %\textwidth=150mm

 %\topmargin=4.6mm

 %\headheight=0mm

 %\headsep=0mm

 %\textheight=234mm

 \def\Colon{\mathord{:\mkern-1.5mu:}}

 %\def\lbrakk{\mathopen{\lbrack\mkern-3.25mu\lbrack}}

 %\def\rbrakk{\mathclose{\rbrack\mkern-3.255mu\rbrack}}

 \def\lparr{\mathopen{(\mkern-4mu\mid}}

 \def\rparr{\mathclose{\mid\mkern-4mu)}}

 \def\unk{{?}}

 \def\undef{(\lambda x.\; \unk)}

 %\def\unr{\textit{others}}

 \def\unr{\ldots}

 \def\Abs#1{\hbox{\rm{\flqq}}{\,#1\,}\hbox{\rm{\frqq}}}

 \def\Q{{\smash{\lower.2ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle?$}}}}

 \hyphenation{Mini-Sat size-change First-Steps grand-parent nit-pick

 counter-example counter-examples data-type data-types co-data-type 

 co-data-types in-duc-tive co-in-duc-tive}

 \urlstyle{tt}

 \begin{document}

 \selectlanguage{english}

 \title{\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{isabelle_nitpick} \\[4ex]

 Picking Nits \\[\smallskipamount]

 \Large A User's Guide to Nitpick for Isabelle/HOL}

 \author{\hbox{} \\

 Jasmin Christian Blanchette \\

 {\normalsize Institut f\"ur Informatik, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen} \\

 \hbox{}}

 \maketitle

 \tableofcontents

 \setlength{\parskip}{.7em plus .2em minus .1em}

 \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}

 \setlength{\abovedisplayskip}{\parskip}

 \setlength{\abovedisplayshortskip}{.9\parskip}

 \setlength{\belowdisplayskip}{\parskip}

 \setlength{\belowdisplayshortskip}{.9\parskip}

 % General-purpose enum environment with correct spacing

 \newenvironment{enum}%

     {\begin{list}{}{%

         \setlength{\topsep}{.1\parskip}%

         \setlength{\partopsep}{.1\parskip}%

         \setlength{\itemsep}{\parskip}%

         \advance\itemsep by-\parsep}}

     {\end{list}}

 \def\pre{\begingroup\vskip0pt plus1ex\advance\leftskip by\leftmargin

 \advance\rightskip by\leftmargin}

 \def\post{\vskip0pt plus1ex\endgroup}

 \def\prew{\pre\advance\rightskip by-\leftmargin}

 \def\postw{\post}

 \section{Introduction}

 \label{introduction}

 Nitpick \cite{blanchette-nipkow-2009} is a counterexample generator for

 Isabelle/HOL \cite{isa-tutorial} that is designed to handle formulas

 combining (co)in\-duc\-tive datatypes, (co)in\-duc\-tively defined predicates, and

 quantifiers. It builds on Kodkod \cite{torlak-jackson-2007}, a highly optimized

 first-order relational model finder developed by the Software Design Group at

 MIT. It is conceptually similar to Refute \cite{weber-2008}, from which it

 borrows many ideas and code fragments, but it benefits from Kodkod's

 optimizations and a new encoding scheme. The name Nitpick is shamelessly

 appropriated from a now retired Alloy precursor.

 Nitpick is easy to use---you simply enter \textbf{nitpick} after a putative

 theorem and wait a few seconds. Nonetheless, there are situations where knowing

 how it works under the hood and how it reacts to various options helps

 increase the test coverage. This manual also explains how to install the tool on

 your workstation. Should the motivation fail you, think of the many hours of

 hard work Nitpick will save you. Proving non-theorems is \textsl{hard work}.

 Another common use of Nitpick is to find out whether the axioms of a locale are

 satisfiable, while the locale is being developed. To check this, it suffices to

 write

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$\textit{False}$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{show\_all}]

 \postw

 after the locale's \textbf{begin} keyword. To falsify \textit{False}, Nitpick

 must find a model for the axioms. If it finds no model, we have an indication

 that the axioms might be unsatisfiable.

 Nitpick requires the Kodkodi package for Isabelle as well as a Java 1.5 virtual

 machine called \texttt{java}. The examples presented in this manual can be found

 in Isabelle's \texttt{src/HOL/Nitpick\_Examples/Manual\_Nits.thy} theory.

 Throughout this manual, we will explicitly invoke the \textbf{nitpick} command.

 Nitpick also provides an automatic mode that can be enabled using the

 ``Auto Nitpick'' option from the ``Isabelle'' menu in Proof General. In this

 mode, Nitpick is run on every newly entered theorem, much like Auto Quickcheck.

 The collective time limit for Auto Nitpick and Auto Quickcheck can be set using

 the ``Auto Counterexample Time Limit'' option.

 \newbox\boxA

 \setbox\boxA=\hbox{\texttt{nospam}}

 The known bugs and limitations at the time of writing are listed in

 \S\ref{known-bugs-and-limitations}. Comments and bug reports concerning Nitpick

 or this manual should be directed to

 \texttt{blan{\color{white}nospam}\kern-\wd\boxA{}chette@\allowbreak

 in.\allowbreak tum.\allowbreak de}.

 \vskip2.5\smallskipamount

 \textbf{Acknowledgment.} The author would like to thank Mark Summerfield for

 suggesting several textual improvements.

 % and Perry James for reporting a typo.

 \section{First Steps}

 \label{first-steps}

 This section introduces Nitpick by presenting small examples. If possible, you

 should try out the examples on your workstation. Your theory file should start

 the standard way:

 \prew

 \textbf{theory}~\textit{Scratch} \\

 \textbf{imports}~\textit{Main} \\

 \textbf{begin}

 \postw

 The results presented here were obtained using the JNI version of MiniSat and

 with multithreading disabled to reduce nondeterminism. This was done by adding

 the line

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick\_params} [\textit{sat\_solver}~= \textit{MiniSatJNI}, \,\textit{max\_threads}~= 1]

 \postw

 after the \textbf{begin} keyword. The JNI version of MiniSat is bundled with

 Kodkodi and is precompiled for the major platforms. Other SAT solvers can also

 be installed, as explained in \S\ref{optimizations}. If you have already

 configured SAT solvers in Isabelle (e.g., for Refute), these will also be

 available to Nitpick.

 \subsection{Propositional Logic}

 \label{propositional-logic}

 Let's start with a trivial example from propositional logic:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$P \longleftrightarrow Q$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}

 \postw

 You should get the following output:

 \prew

 \slshape

 Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \textit{True}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $Q = \textit{False}$

 \postw

 Nitpick can also be invoked on individual subgoals, as in the example below:

 \prew

 \textbf{apply}~\textit{auto} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape goal (2 subgoals): \\

 \phantom{0}1. $P\,\Longrightarrow\, Q$ \\

 \phantom{0}2. $Q\,\Longrightarrow\, P$} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{nitpick}~1 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \textit{True}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $Q = \textit{False}$} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{nitpick}~2 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \textit{False}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $Q = \textit{True}$} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{oops}

 \postw

 \subsection{Type Variables}

 \label{type-variables}

 If you are left unimpressed by the previous example, don't worry. The next

 one is more mind- and computer-boggling:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$P~x\,\Longrightarrow\, P~(\textrm{THE}~y.\;P~y)$''

 \postw

 \pagebreak[2] %% TYPESETTING

 The putative lemma involves the definite description operator, {THE}, presented

 in section 5.10.1 of the Isabelle tutorial \cite{isa-tutorial}. The

 operator is defined by the axiom $(\textrm{THE}~x.\; x = a) = a$. The putative

 lemma is merely asserting the indefinite description operator axiom with {THE}

 substituted for {SOME}.

 The free variable $x$ and the bound variable $y$ have type $'a$. For formulas

 containing type variables, Nitpick enumerates the possible domains for each type

 variable, up to a given cardinality (8 by default), looking for a finite

 countermodel:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{verbose}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Trying 8 scopes: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card}~$'a$~= 1; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card}~$'a$~= 2; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\qquad\vdots$ \\[.5\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card}~$'a$~= 8. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 3: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \{a_2,\, a_3\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $x = a_3$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Total time: 580 ms.

 \postw

 Nitpick found a counterexample in which $'a$ has cardinality 3. (For

 cardinalities 1 and 2, the formula holds.) In the counterexample, the three

 values of type $'a$ are written $a_1$, $a_2$, and $a_3$.

 The message ``Trying $n$ scopes: {\ldots}''\ is shown only if the option

 \textit{verbose} is enabled. You can specify \textit{verbose} each time you

 invoke \textbf{nitpick}, or you can set it globally using the command

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick\_params} [\textit{verbose}]

 \postw

 This command also displays the current default values for all of the options

 supported by Nitpick. The options are listed in \S\ref{option-reference}.

 \subsection{Constants}

 \label{constants}

 By just looking at Nitpick's output, it might not be clear why the

 counterexample in \S\ref{type-variables} is genuine. Let's invoke Nitpick again,

 this time telling it to show the values of the constants that occur in the

 formula:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$P~x\,\Longrightarrow\, P~(\textrm{THE}~y.\;P~y)$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{show\_consts}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 3: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \{a_2,\, a_3\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $x = a_3$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Constant: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{The}~\textsl{fallback} = a_1$

 \postw

 We can see more clearly now. Since the predicate $P$ isn't true for a unique

 value, $\textrm{THE}~y.\;P~y$ can denote any value of type $'a$, even

 $a_1$. Since $P~a_1$ is false, the entire formula is falsified.

 As an optimization, Nitpick's preprocessor introduced the special constant

 ``\textit{The} fallback'' corresponding to $\textrm{THE}~y.\;P~y$ (i.e.,

 $\mathit{The}~(\lambda y.\;P~y)$) when there doesn't exist a unique $y$

 satisfying $P~y$. We disable this optimization by passing the

 \textit{full\_descrs} option:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{full\_descrs},\, \textit{show\_consts}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 3: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \{a_2,\, a_3\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $x = a_3$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Constant: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\hbox{\slshape THE}~y.\;P~y = a_1$

 \postw

 As the result of another optimization, Nitpick directly assigned a value to the

 subterm $\textrm{THE}~y.\;P~y$, rather than to the \textit{The} constant. If we

 disable this second optimization by using the command

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{dont\_specialize},\, \textit{full\_descrs},\,

 \textit{show\_consts}]

 \postw

 we finally get \textit{The}:

 \prew

 \slshape Constant: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\mathit{The} = \undef{}

     (\!\begin{aligned}[t]%

     & \{\} := a_3,\> \{a_3\} := a_3,\> \{a_2\} := a_2, \\[-2pt] %% TYPESETTING

     & \{a_2, a_3\} := a_1,\> \{a_1\} := a_1,\> \{a_1, a_3\} := a_3, \\[-2pt]

     & \{a_1, a_2\} := a_3,\> \{a_1, a_2, a_3\} := a_3)\end{aligned}$

 \postw

 Notice that $\textit{The}~(\lambda y.\;P~y) = \textit{The}~\{a_2, a_3\} = a_1$,

 just like before.\footnote{The Isabelle/HOL notation $f(x :=

 y)$ denotes the function that maps $x$ to $y$ and that otherwise behaves like

 $f$.}

 Our misadventures with THE suggest adding `$\exists!x{.}$' (``there exists a

 unique $x$ such that'') at the front of our putative lemma's assumption:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$\exists {!}x.\; P~x\,\Longrightarrow\, P~(\textrm{THE}~y.\;P~y)$''

 \postw

 The fix appears to work:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found no counterexample.

 \postw

 We can further increase our confidence in the formula by exhausting all

 cardinalities up to 50:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{card} $'a$~= 1--50]\footnote{The symbol `--'

 can be entered as \texttt{-} (hyphen) or

 \texttt{\char`\\\char`\<midarrow\char`\>}.} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found no counterexample.

 \postw

 Let's see if Sledgehammer \cite{sledgehammer-2009} can find a proof:

 \prew

 \textbf{sledgehammer} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Sledgehammer: external prover ``$e$'' for subgoal 1: \\

 $\exists{!}x.\; P~x\,\Longrightarrow\, P~(\hbox{\slshape THE}~y.\; P~y)$ \\

 Try this command: \textrm{apply}~(\textit{metis~the\_equality})} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{apply}~(\textit{metis~the\_equality\/}) \nopagebreak \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape No subgoals!}% \\[2\smallskipamount]

 %\textbf{done}

 \postw

 This must be our lucky day.

 \subsection{Skolemization}

 \label{skolemization}

 Are all invertible functions onto? Let's find out:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\exists g.\; \forall x.~g~(f~x) = x

  \,\Longrightarrow\, \forall y.\; \exists x.~y = f~x$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 2 and \textit{card} $'b$~=~1: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $f = \undef{}(b_1 := a_1)$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Skolem constants: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $g = \undef{}(a_1 := b_1,\> a_2 := b_1)$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $y = a_2$

 \postw

 Although $f$ is the only free variable occurring in the formula, Nitpick also

 displays values for the bound variables $g$ and $y$. These values are available

 to Nitpick because it performs skolemization as a preprocessing step.

 In the previous example, skolemization only affected the outermost quantifiers.

 This is not always the case, as illustrated below:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\exists x.\; \forall f.\; f~x = x$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 2: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Skolem constant: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\lambda x.\; f =

     \undef{}(\!\begin{aligned}[t]

     & a_1 := \undef{}(a_1 := a_2,\> a_2 := a_1), \\[-2pt]

     & a_2 := \undef{}(a_1 := a_1,\> a_2 := a_1))\end{aligned}$

 \postw

 The variable $f$ is bound within the scope of $x$; therefore, $f$ depends on

 $x$, as suggested by the notation $\lambda x.\,f$. If $x = a_1$, then $f$ is the

 function that maps $a_1$ to $a_2$ and vice versa; otherwise, $x = a_2$ and $f$

 maps both $a_1$ and $a_2$ to $a_1$. In both cases, $f~x \not= x$.

 The source of the Skolem constants is sometimes more obscure:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\mathit{refl}~r\,\Longrightarrow\, \mathit{sym}~r$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 2: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $r = \{(a_1, a_1),\, (a_2, a_1),\, (a_2, a_2)\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Skolem constants: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\mathit{sym}.x = a_2$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\mathit{sym}.y = a_1$

 \postw

 What happened here is that Nitpick expanded the \textit{sym} constant to its

 definition:

 \prew

 $\mathit{sym}~r \,\equiv\,

  \forall x\> y.\,\> (x, y) \in r \longrightarrow (y, x) \in r.$

 \postw

 As their names suggest, the Skolem constants $\mathit{sym}.x$ and

 $\mathit{sym}.y$ are simply the bound variables $x$ and $y$

 from \textit{sym}'s definition.

 Although skolemization is a useful optimization, you can disable it by invoking

 Nitpick with \textit{dont\_skolemize}. See \S\ref{optimizations} for details.

 \subsection{Natural Numbers and Integers}

 \label{natural-numbers-and-integers}

 Because of the axiom of infinity, the type \textit{nat} does not admit any

 finite models. To deal with this, Nitpick's approach is to consider finite

 subsets $N$ of \textit{nat} and maps all numbers $\notin N$ to the undefined

 value (displayed as `$\unk$'). The type \textit{int} is handled similarly.

 Internally, undefined values lead to a three-valued logic.

 Here is an example involving \textit{int}:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\lbrakk i \le j;\> n \le (m{\Colon}\mathit{int})\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, i * n + j * m \le i * m + j * n$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $i = 0$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $j = 1$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $m = 1$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $n = 0$

 \postw

 Internally, Nitpick uses either a unary or a binary representation of numbers.

 The unary representation is more efficient but only suitable for numbers very

 close to zero. By default, Nitpick attempts to choose the more appropriate

 encoding by inspecting the formula at hand. This behavior can be overridden by

 passing either \textit{unary\_ints} or \textit{binary\_ints} as option. For

 binary notation, the number of bits to use can be specified using

 the \textit{bits} option. For example:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{binary\_ints}, \textit{bits}${} = 16$]

 \postw

 With infinite types, we don't always have the luxury of a genuine counterexample

 and must often content ourselves with a potential one. The tedious task of

 finding out whether the potential counterexample is in fact genuine can be

 outsourced to \textit{auto} by passing \textit{check\_potential}. For example:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\forall n.\; \textit{Suc}~n \mathbin{\not=} n \,\Longrightarrow\, P$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{card~nat}~= 100, \textit{check\_potential}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a potential counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \textit{False}$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Confirmation by ``\textit{auto}'': The above counterexample is genuine.

 \postw

 You might wonder why the counterexample is first reported as potential. The root

 of the problem is that the bound variable in $\forall n.\; \textit{Suc}~n

 \mathbin{\not=} n$ ranges over an infinite type. If Nitpick finds an $n$ such

 that $\textit{Suc}~n \mathbin{=} n$, it evaluates the assumption to

 \textit{False}; but otherwise, it does not know anything about values of $n \ge

 \textit{card~nat}$ and must therefore evaluate the assumption to $\unk$, not

 \textit{True}. Since the assumption can never be satisfied, the putative lemma

 can never be falsified.

 Incidentally, if you distrust the so-called genuine counterexamples, you can

 enable \textit{check\_\allowbreak genuine} to verify them as well. However, be

 aware that \textit{auto} will usually fail to prove that the counterexample is

 genuine or spurious.

 Some conjectures involving elementary number theory make Nitpick look like a

 giant with feet of clay:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$P~\textit{Suc}$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{card} = 1--6] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Nitpick found no counterexample.

 \postw

 On any finite set $N$, \textit{Suc} is a partial function; for example, if $N =

 \{0, 1, \ldots, k\}$, then \textit{Suc} is $\{0 \mapsto 1,\, 1 \mapsto 2,\,

 \ldots,\, k \mapsto \unk\}$, which evaluates to $\unk$ when passed as

 argument to $P$. As a result, $P~\textit{Suc}$ is always $\unk$. The next

 example is similar:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$P~(\textit{op}~{+}\Colon

 \textit{nat}\mathbin{\Rightarrow}\textit{nat}\mathbin{\Rightarrow}\textit{nat})$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{card nat} = 1] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick found a counterexample:} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \{\}$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{card nat} = 2] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick found no counterexample.}

 \postw

 The problem here is that \textit{op}~+ is total when \textit{nat} is taken to be

 $\{0\}$ but becomes partial as soon as we add $1$, because $1 + 1 \notin \{0,

 1\}$.

 Because numbers are infinite and are approximated using a three-valued logic,

 there is usually no need to systematically enumerate domain sizes. If Nitpick

 cannot find a genuine counterexample for \textit{card~nat}~= $k$, it is very

 unlikely that one could be found for smaller domains. (The $P~(\textit{op}~{+})$

 example above is an exception to this principle.) Nitpick nonetheless enumerates

 all cardinalities from 1 to 8 for \textit{nat}, mainly because smaller

 cardinalities are fast to handle and give rise to simpler counterexamples. This

 is explained in more detail in \S\ref{scope-monotonicity}.

 \subsection{Inductive Datatypes}

 \label{inductive-datatypes}

 Like natural numbers and integers, inductive datatypes with recursive

 constructors admit no finite models and must be approximated by a subterm-closed

 subset. For example, using a cardinality of 10 for ${'}a~\textit{list}$,

 Nitpick looks for all counterexamples that can be built using at most 10

 different lists.

 Let's see with an example involving \textit{hd} (which returns the first element

 of a list) and $@$ (which concatenates two lists):

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\textit{hd}~(\textit{xs} \mathbin{@} [y, y]) = \textit{hd}~\textit{xs}$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 3: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{xs} = []$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{y} = a_3$

 \postw

 To see why the counterexample is genuine, we enable \textit{show\_consts}

 and \textit{show\_\allowbreak datatypes}:

 \prew

 {\slshape Datatype:} \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $'a$~\textit{list}~= $\{[],\, [a_3, a_3],\, [a_3],\, \unr\}$ \\

 {\slshape Constants:} \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\lambda x_1.\; x_1 \mathbin{@} [y, y] = \undef([] := [a_3, a_3])$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\textit{hd} = \undef([] := a_2,\> [a_3, a_3] := a_3,\> [a_3] := a_3)$

 \postw

 Since $\mathit{hd}~[]$ is undefined in the logic, it may be given any value,

 including $a_2$.

 The second constant, $\lambda x_1.\; x_1 \mathbin{@} [y, y]$, is simply the

 append operator whose second argument is fixed to be $[y, y]$. Appending $[a_3,

 a_3]$ to $[a_3]$ would normally give $[a_3, a_3, a_3]$, but this value is not

 representable in the subset of $'a$~\textit{list} considered by Nitpick, which

 is shown under the ``Datatype'' heading; hence the result is $\unk$. Similarly,

 appending $[a_3, a_3]$ to itself gives $\unk$.

 Given \textit{card}~$'a = 3$ and \textit{card}~$'a~\textit{list} = 3$, Nitpick

 considers the following subsets:

 \kern-.5\smallskipamount %% TYPESETTING

 \prew

 \begin{multicols}{3}

 $\{[],\, [a_1],\, [a_2]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_1],\, [a_3]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_2],\, [a_3]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_1],\, [a_1, a_1]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_1],\, [a_2, a_1]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_1],\, [a_3, a_1]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_2],\, [a_1, a_2]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_2],\, [a_2, a_2]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_2],\, [a_3, a_2]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_3],\, [a_1, a_3]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_3],\, [a_2, a_3]\}$; \\

 $\{[],\, [a_3],\, [a_3, a_3]\}$.

 \end{multicols}

 \postw

 \kern-2\smallskipamount %% TYPESETTING

 All subterm-closed subsets of $'a~\textit{list}$ consisting of three values

 are listed and only those. As an example of a non-subterm-closed subset,

 consider $\mathcal{S} = \{[],\, [a_1],\,\allowbreak [a_1, a_3]\}$, and observe

 that $[a_1, a_3]$ (i.e., $a_1 \mathbin{\#} [a_3]$) has $[a_3] \notin

 \mathcal{S}$ as a subterm.

 Here's another m\"ochtegern-lemma that Nitpick can refute without a blink:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\lbrakk \textit{length}~\textit{xs} = 1;\> \textit{length}~\textit{ys} = 1

 \rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{xs} = \textit{ys}$''

 \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{show\_datatypes}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 3: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{xs} = [a_2]$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{ys} = [a_3]$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Datatypes: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{nat} = \{0,\, 1,\, 2,\, \unr\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $'a$~\textit{list} = $\{[],\, [a_3],\, [a_2],\, \unr\}$

 \postw

 Because datatypes are approximated using a three-valued logic, there is usually

 no need to systematically enumerate cardinalities: If Nitpick cannot find a

 genuine counterexample for \textit{card}~$'a~\textit{list}$~= 10, it is very

 unlikely that one could be found for smaller cardinalities.

 \subsection{Typedefs, Records, Rationals, and Reals}

 \label{typedefs-records-rationals-and-reals}

 Nitpick generally treats types declared using \textbf{typedef} as datatypes

 whose single constructor is the corresponding \textit{Abs\_\kern.1ex} function.

 For example:

 \prew

 \textbf{typedef}~\textit{three} = ``$\{0\Colon\textit{nat},\, 1,\, 2\}$'' \\

 \textbf{by}~\textit{blast} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{definition}~$A \mathbin{\Colon} \textit{three}$ \textbf{where} ``\kern-.1em$A \,\equiv\, \textit{Abs\_\allowbreak three}~0$'' \\

 \textbf{definition}~$B \mathbin{\Colon} \textit{three}$ \textbf{where} ``$B \,\equiv\, \textit{Abs\_three}~1$'' \\

 \textbf{definition}~$C \mathbin{\Colon} \textit{three}$ \textbf{where} ``$C \,\equiv\, \textit{Abs\_three}~2$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\lbrakk P~A;\> P~B\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, P~x$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{show\_datatypes}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $P = \{\Abs{1},\, \Abs{0}\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $x = \Abs{2}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Datatypes: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{nat} = \{0,\, 1,\, 2,\, \unr\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{three} = \{\Abs{2},\, \Abs{1},\, \Abs{0},\, \unr\}$

 \postw

 %% MARK

 In the output above, $\Abs{n}$ abbreviates $\textit{Abs\_three}~n$.

 %% MARK

 Records, which are implemented as \textbf{typedef}s behind the scenes, are

 handled in much the same way:

 \prew

 \textbf{record} \textit{point} = \\

 \hbox{}\quad $\textit{Xcoord} \mathbin{\Colon} \textit{int}$ \\

 \hbox{}\quad $\textit{Ycoord} \mathbin{\Colon} \textit{int}$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\textit{Xcoord}~(p\Colon\textit{point}) = \textit{Xcoord}~(q\Colon\textit{point})$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{show\_datatypes}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $p = \lparr\textit{Xcoord} = 0,\> \textit{Ycoord} = 0\rparr$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $q = \lparr\textit{Xcoord} = 1,\> \textit{Ycoord} = 1\rparr$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Datatypes: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{int} = \{0,\, 1,\, \unr\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{point} = \{\lparr\textit{Xcoord} = 1,\>

 \textit{Ycoord} = 1\rparr,\> \lparr\textit{Xcoord} = 0,\> \textit{Ycoord} = 0\rparr,\, \unr\}$\kern-1pt %% QUIET

 \postw

 Finally, Nitpick provides rudimentary support for rationals and reals using a

 similar approach:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$4 * x + 3 * (y\Colon\textit{real}) \not= 1/2$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{show\_datatypes}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $x = 1/2$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $y = -1/2$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Datatypes: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{nat} = \{0,\, 1,\, 2,\, 3,\, 4,\, 5,\, 6,\, 7,\, \unr\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{int} = \{0,\, 1,\, 2,\, 3,\, 4,\, -3,\, -2,\, -1,\, \unr\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{real} = \{1,\, 0,\, 4,\, -3/2,\, 3,\, 2,\, 1/2,\, -1/2,\, \unr\}$

 \postw

 \subsection{Inductive and Coinductive Predicates}

 \label{inductive-and-coinductive-predicates}

 Inductively defined predicates (and sets) are particularly problematic for

 counterexample generators. They can make Quickcheck~\cite{berghofer-nipkow-2004}

 loop forever and Refute~\cite{weber-2008} run out of resources. The crux of

 the problem is that they are defined using a least fixed point construction.

 Nitpick's philosophy is that not all inductive predicates are equal. Consider

 the \textit{even} predicate below:

 \prew

 \textbf{inductive}~\textit{even}~\textbf{where} \\

 ``\textit{even}~0'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``\textit{even}~$n\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}~(\textit{Suc}~(\textit{Suc}~n))$''

 \postw

 This predicate enjoys the desirable property of being well-founded, which means

 that the introduction rules don't give rise to infinite chains of the form

 \prew

 $\cdots\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}~k''

        \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}~k'

        \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}~k.$

 \postw

 For \textit{even}, this is obvious: Any chain ending at $k$ will be of length

 $k/2 + 1$:

 \prew

 $\textit{even}~0\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}~2\,\Longrightarrow\, \cdots

        \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}~(k - 2)

        \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}~k.$

 \postw

 Wellfoundedness is desirable because it enables Nitpick to use a very efficient

 fixed point computation.%

 \footnote{If an inductive predicate is

 well-founded, then it has exactly one fixed point, which is simultaneously the

 least and the greatest fixed point. In these circumstances, the computation of

 the least fixed point amounts to the computation of an arbitrary fixed point,

 which can be performed using a straightforward recursive equation.}

 Moreover, Nitpick can prove wellfoundedness of most well-founded predicates,

 just as Isabelle's \textbf{function} package usually discharges termination

 proof obligations automatically.

 Let's try an example:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\exists n.\; \textit{even}~n \mathrel{\land} \textit{even}~(\textit{Suc}~n)$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{card nat}~= 100, \textit{unary\_ints}, \textit{verbose}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape The inductive predicate ``\textit{even}'' was proved well-founded.

 Nitpick can compute it efficiently. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Trying 1 scope: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card nat}~= 100. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Nitpick found a potential counterexample for \textit{card nat}~= 100: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Empty assignment \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Nitpick could not find a better counterexample. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Total time: 2274 ms.

 \postw

 No genuine counterexample is possible because Nitpick cannot rule out the

 existence of a natural number $n \ge 100$ such that both $\textit{even}~n$ and

 $\textit{even}~(\textit{Suc}~n)$ are true. To help Nitpick, we can bound the

 existential quantifier:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\exists n \mathbin{\le} 99.\; \textit{even}~n \mathrel{\land} \textit{even}~(\textit{Suc}~n)$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{card nat}~= 100, \textit{unary\_ints}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Empty assignment

 \postw

 So far we were blessed by the wellfoundedness of \textit{even}. What happens if

 we use the following definition instead?

 \prew

 \textbf{inductive} $\textit{even}'$ \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{even}'~(0{\Colon}\textit{nat})$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{even}'~2$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\lbrakk\textit{even}'~m;\> \textit{even}'~n\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}'~(m + n)$''

 \postw

 This definition is not well-founded: From $\textit{even}'~0$ and

 $\textit{even}'~0$, we can derive that $\textit{even}'~0$. Nonetheless, the

 predicates $\textit{even}$ and $\textit{even}'$ are equivalent.

 Let's check a property involving $\textit{even}'$. To make up for the

 foreseeable computational hurdles entailed by non-wellfoundedness, we decrease

 \textit{nat}'s cardinality to a mere 10:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$\exists n \in \{0, 2, 4, 6, 8\}.\;

 \lnot\;\textit{even}'~n$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{card nat}~= 10,\, \textit{verbose},\, \textit{show\_consts}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 The inductive predicate ``$\textit{even}'\!$'' could not be proved well-founded.

 Nitpick might need to unroll it. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Trying 6 scopes: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card nat}~= 10 and \textit{iter} $\textit{even}'$~= 0; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card nat}~= 10 and \textit{iter} $\textit{even}'$~= 1; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card nat}~= 10 and \textit{iter} $\textit{even}'$~= 2; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card nat}~= 10 and \textit{iter} $\textit{even}'$~= 4; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card nat}~= 10 and \textit{iter} $\textit{even}'$~= 8; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card nat}~= 10 and \textit{iter} $\textit{even}'$~= 9. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card nat}~= 10 and \textit{iter} $\textit{even}'$~= 2: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Constant: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\lambda i.\; \textit{even}'$ = $\undef(\!\begin{aligned}[t]

 & 2 := \{0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 1^\Q, 3^\Q, 5^\Q, 7^\Q, 9^\Q\}, \\[-2pt]

 & 1 := \{0, 2, 4, 1^\Q, 3^\Q, 5^\Q, 6^\Q, 7^\Q, 8^\Q, 9^\Q\}, \\[-2pt]

 & 0 := \{0, 2, 1^\Q, 3^\Q, 4^\Q, 5^\Q, 6^\Q, 7^\Q, 8^\Q, 9^\Q\})\end{aligned}$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Total time: 1140 ms.

 \postw

 Nitpick's output is very instructive. First, it tells us that the predicate is

 unrolled, meaning that it is computed iteratively from the empty set. Then it

 lists six scopes specifying different bounds on the numbers of iterations:\ 0,

 1, 2, 4, 8, and~9.

 The output also shows how each iteration contributes to $\textit{even}'$. The

 notation $\lambda i.\; \textit{even}'$ indicates that the value of the

 predicate depends on an iteration counter. Iteration 0 provides the basis

 elements, $0$ and $2$. Iteration 1 contributes $4$ ($= 2 + 2$). Iteration 2

 throws $6$ ($= 2 + 4 = 4 + 2$) and $8$ ($= 4 + 4$) into the mix. Further

 iterations would not contribute any new elements.

 Some values are marked with superscripted question

 marks~(`\lower.2ex\hbox{$^\Q$}'). These are the elements for which the

 predicate evaluates to $\unk$. Thus, $\textit{even}'$ evaluates to either

 \textit{True} or $\unk$, never \textit{False}.

 When unrolling a predicate, Nitpick tries 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24

 iterations. However, these numbers are bounded by the cardinality of the

 predicate's domain. With \textit{card~nat}~= 10, no more than 9 iterations are

 ever needed to compute the value of a \textit{nat} predicate. You can specify

 the number of iterations using the \textit{iter} option, as explained in

 \S\ref{scope-of-search}.

 In the next formula, $\textit{even}'$ occurs both positively and negatively:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\textit{even}'~(n - 2) \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{even}'~n$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{card nat} = 10, \textit{show\_consts}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $n = 1$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Constants: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\lambda i.\; \textit{even}'$ = $\undef(\!\begin{aligned}[t]

 & 0 := \{0, 2, 1^\Q, 3^\Q, 4^\Q, 5^\Q, 6^\Q, 7^\Q, 8^\Q, 9^\Q\})\end{aligned}$  \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{even}' \subseteq \{0, 2, 4, 6, 8, \unr\}$

 \postw

 Notice the special constraint $\textit{even}' \subseteq \{0,\, 2,\, 4,\, 6,\,

 8,\, \unr\}$ in the output, whose right-hand side represents an arbitrary

 fixed point (not necessarily the least one). It is used to falsify

 $\textit{even}'~n$. In contrast, the unrolled predicate is used to satisfy

 $\textit{even}'~(n - 2)$.

 Coinductive predicates are handled dually. For example:

 \prew

 \textbf{coinductive} \textit{nats} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{nats}~(x\Colon\textit{nat}) \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{nats}~x$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\textit{nats} = \{0, 1, 2, 3, 4\}$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{card nat} = 10,\, \textit{show\_consts}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample:

 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Constants: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\lambda i.\; \textit{nats} = \undef(0 := \{\!\begin{aligned}[t]

 & 0^\Q, 1^\Q, 2^\Q, 3^\Q, 4^\Q, 5^\Q, 6^\Q, 7^\Q, 8^\Q, 9^\Q, \\[-2pt]

 & \unr\})\end{aligned}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $nats \supseteq \{9, 5^\Q, 6^\Q, 7^\Q, 8^\Q, \unr\}$

 \postw

 As a special case, Nitpick uses Kodkod's transitive closure operator to encode

 negative occurrences of non-well-founded ``linear inductive predicates,'' i.e.,

 inductive predicates for which each the predicate occurs in at most one

 assumption of each introduction rule. For example:

 \prew

 \textbf{inductive} \textit{odd} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{odd}~1$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\lbrakk \textit{odd}~m;\>\, \textit{even}~n\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{odd}~(m + n)$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{lemma}~``$\textit{odd}~n \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{odd}~(n - 2)$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{card nat} = 10,\, \textit{show\_consts}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample:

 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $n = 1$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Constants: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{even} = \{0, 2, 4, 6, 8, \unr\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{odd}_{\textsl{base}} = \{1, \unr\}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{odd}_{\textsl{step}} = \!

 \!\begin{aligned}[t]

   & \{(0, 0), (0, 2), (0, 4), (0, 6), (0, 8), (1, 1), (1, 3), (1, 5), \\[-2pt]

   & \phantom{\{} (1, 7), (1, 9), (2, 2), (2, 4), (2, 6), (2, 8), (3, 3),

        (3, 5), \\[-2pt]

   & \phantom{\{} (3, 7), (3, 9), (4, 4), (4, 6), (4, 8), (5, 5), (5, 7), (5, 9), \\[-2pt]

   & \phantom{\{} (6, 6), (6, 8), (7, 7), (7, 9), (8, 8), (9, 9), \unr\}\end{aligned}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{odd} \subseteq \{1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 8^\Q, \unr\}$

 \postw

 \noindent

 In the output, $\textit{odd}_{\textrm{base}}$ represents the base elements and

 $\textit{odd}_{\textrm{step}}$ is a transition relation that computes new

 elements from known ones. The set $\textit{odd}$ consists of all the values

 reachable through the reflexive transitive closure of

 $\textit{odd}_{\textrm{step}}$ starting with any element from

 $\textit{odd}_{\textrm{base}}$, namely 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Using Kodkod's

 transitive closure to encode linear predicates is normally either more thorough

 or more efficient than unrolling (depending on the value of \textit{iter}), but

 for those cases where it isn't you can disable it by passing the

 \textit{dont\_star\_linear\_preds} option.

 \subsection{Coinductive Datatypes}

 \label{coinductive-datatypes}

 While Isabelle regrettably lacks a high-level mechanism for defining coinductive

 datatypes, the \textit{Coinductive\_List} theory provides a coinductive ``lazy

 list'' datatype, $'a~\textit{llist}$, defined the hard way. Nitpick supports

 these lazy lists seamlessly and provides a hook, described in

 \S\ref{registration-of-coinductive-datatypes}, to register custom coinductive

 datatypes.

 (Co)intuitively, a coinductive datatype is similar to an inductive datatype but

 allows infinite objects. Thus, the infinite lists $\textit{ps}$ $=$ $[a, a, a,

 \ldots]$, $\textit{qs}$ $=$ $[a, b, a, b, \ldots]$, and $\textit{rs}$ $=$ $[0,

 1, 2, 3, \ldots]$ can be defined as lazy lists using the

 $\textit{LNil}\mathbin{\Colon}{'}a~\textit{llist}$ and

 $\textit{LCons}\mathbin{\Colon}{'}a \mathbin{\Rightarrow} {'}a~\textit{llist}

 \mathbin{\Rightarrow} {'}a~\textit{llist}$ constructors.

 Although it is otherwise no friend of infinity, Nitpick can find counterexamples

 involving cyclic lists such as \textit{ps} and \textit{qs} above as well as

 finite lists:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\textit{xs} \not= \textit{LCons}~a~\textit{xs}$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample for {\itshape card}~$'a$ = 1: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{a} = a_1$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{xs} = \textsl{THE}~\omega.\; \omega = \textit{LCons}~a_1~\omega$

 \postw

 The notation $\textrm{THE}~\omega.\; \omega = t(\omega)$ stands

 for the infinite term $t(t(t(\ldots)))$. Hence, \textit{xs} is simply the

 infinite list $[a_1, a_1, a_1, \ldots]$.

 The next example is more interesting:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$\lbrakk\textit{xs} = \textit{LCons}~a~\textit{xs};\>\,

 \textit{ys} = \textit{iterates}~(\lambda b.\> a)~b\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{xs} = \textit{ys}$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{verbose}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape The type ``\kern1pt$'a$'' passed the monotonicity test. Nitpick might be able to skip

 some scopes. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Trying 8 scopes: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card} $'a$~= 1, \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'a~\textit{list}$''~= 1,

 and \textit{bisim\_depth}~= 0. \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\qquad\vdots$ \\[.5\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card} $'a$~= 8, \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'a~\textit{list}$''~= 8,

 and \textit{bisim\_depth}~= 7. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Nitpick found a counterexample for {\itshape card}~$'a$ = 2,

 \textit{card}~``\kern1pt$'a~\textit{list}$''~= 2, and \textit{bisim\_\allowbreak

 depth}~= 1:

 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{a} = a_2$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{b} = a_1$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{xs} = \textsl{THE}~\omega.\; \omega = \textit{LCons}~a_2~\omega$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{ys} = \textit{LCons}~a_1~(\textsl{THE}~\omega.\; \omega = \textit{LCons}~a_2~\omega)$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Total time: 726 ms.

 \postw

 The lazy list $\textit{xs}$ is simply $[a_2, a_2, a_2, \ldots]$, whereas

 $\textit{ys}$ is $[a_1, a_2, a_2, a_2, \ldots]$, i.e., a lasso-shaped list with

 $[a_1]$ as its stem and $[a_2]$ as its cycle. In general, the list segment

 within the scope of the {THE} binder corresponds to the lasso's cycle, whereas

 the segment leading to the binder is the stem.

 A salient property of coinductive datatypes is that two objects are considered

 equal if and only if they lead to the same observations. For example, the lazy

 lists $\textrm{THE}~\omega.\; \omega =

 \textit{LCons}~a~(\textit{LCons}~b~\omega)$ and

 $\textit{LCons}~a~(\textrm{THE}~\omega.\; \omega =

 \textit{LCons}~b~(\textit{LCons}~a~\omega))$ are identical, because both lead

 to the sequence of observations $a$, $b$, $a$, $b$, \hbox{\ldots} (or,

 equivalently, both encode the infinite list $[a, b, a, b, \ldots]$). This

 concept of equality for coinductive datatypes is called bisimulation and is

 defined coinductively.

 Internally, Nitpick encodes the coinductive bisimilarity predicate as part of

 the Kodkod problem to ensure that distinct objects lead to different

 observations. This precaution is somewhat expensive and often unnecessary, so it

 can be disabled by setting the \textit{bisim\_depth} option to $-1$. The

 bisimilarity check is then performed \textsl{after} the counterexample has been

 found to ensure correctness. If this after-the-fact check fails, the

 counterexample is tagged as ``likely genuine'' and Nitpick recommends to try

 again with \textit{bisim\_depth} set to a nonnegative integer. Disabling the

 check for the previous example saves approximately 150~milli\-seconds; the speed

 gains can be more significant for larger scopes.

 The next formula illustrates the need for bisimilarity (either as a Kodkod

 predicate or as an after-the-fact check) to prevent spurious counterexamples:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\lbrakk xs = \textit{LCons}~a~\textit{xs};\>\, \textit{ys} = \textit{LCons}~a~\textit{ys}\rbrakk

 \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{xs} = \textit{ys}$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{bisim\_depth} = $-1$, \textit{show\_datatypes}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a likely genuine counterexample for $\textit{card}~'a$ = 2: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $a = a_2$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{xs} = \textsl{THE}~\omega.\; \omega =

 \textit{LCons}~a_2~\omega$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{ys} = \textsl{THE}~\omega.\; \omega = \textit{LCons}~a_2~\omega$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Codatatype:\strut \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $'a~\textit{llist} =

 \{\!\begin{aligned}[t]

   & \textsl{THE}~\omega.\; \omega = \textit{LCons}~a_2~\omega, \\[-2pt]

   & \textsl{THE}~\omega.\; \omega = \textit{LCons}~a_2~\omega,\> \unr\}\end{aligned}$

 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Try again with ``\textit{bisim\_depth}'' set to a nonnegative value to confirm

 that the counterexample is genuine. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\upshape\textbf{nitpick}} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found no counterexample.

 \postw

 In the first \textbf{nitpick} invocation, the after-the-fact check discovered 

 that the two known elements of type $'a~\textit{llist}$ are bisimilar.

 A compromise between leaving out the bisimilarity predicate from the Kodkod

 problem and performing the after-the-fact check is to specify a lower

 nonnegative \textit{bisim\_depth} value than the default one provided by

 Nitpick. In general, a value of $K$ means that Nitpick will require all lists to

 be distinguished from each other by their prefixes of length $K$. Be aware that

 setting $K$ to a too low value can overconstrain Nitpick, preventing it from

 finding any counterexamples.

 \subsection{Boxing}

 \label{boxing}

 Nitpick normally maps function and product types directly to the corresponding

 Kodkod concepts. As a consequence, if $'a$ has cardinality 3 and $'b$ has

 cardinality 4, then $'a \times {'}b$ has cardinality 12 ($= 4 \times 3$) and $'a

 \Rightarrow {'}b$ has cardinality 64 ($= 4^3$). In some circumstances, it pays

 off to treat these types in the same way as plain datatypes, by approximating

 them by a subset of a given cardinality. This technique is called ``boxing'' and

 is particularly useful for functions passed as arguments to other functions, for

 high-arity functions, and for large tuples. Under the hood, boxing involves

 wrapping occurrences of the types $'a \times {'}b$ and $'a \Rightarrow {'}b$ in

 isomorphic datatypes, as can be seen by enabling the \textit{debug} option.

 To illustrate boxing, we consider a formalization of $\lambda$-terms represented

 using de Bruijn's notation:

 \prew

 \textbf{datatype} \textit{tm} = \textit{Var}~\textit{nat}~$\mid$~\textit{Lam}~\textit{tm} $\mid$ \textit{App~tm~tm}

 \postw

 The $\textit{lift}~t~k$ function increments all variables with indices greater

 than or equal to $k$ by one:

 \prew

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{lift} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{lift}~(\textit{Var}~j)~k = \textit{Var}~(\textrm{if}~j < k~\textrm{then}~j~\textrm{else}~j + 1)$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{lift}~(\textit{Lam}~t)~k = \textit{Lam}~(\textit{lift}~t~(k + 1))$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{lift}~(\textit{App}~t~u)~k = \textit{App}~(\textit{lift}~t~k)~(\textit{lift}~u~k)$''

 \postw

 The $\textit{loose}~t~k$ predicate returns \textit{True} if and only if

 term $t$ has a loose variable with index $k$ or more:

 \prew

 \textbf{primrec}~\textit{loose} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{loose}~(\textit{Var}~j)~k = (j \ge k)$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{loose}~(\textit{Lam}~t)~k = \textit{loose}~t~(\textit{Suc}~k)$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{loose}~(\textit{App}~t~u)~k = (\textit{loose}~t~k \mathrel{\lor} \textit{loose}~u~k)$''

 \postw

 Next, the $\textit{subst}~\sigma~t$ function applies the substitution $\sigma$

 on $t$:

 \prew

 \textbf{primrec}~\textit{subst} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{subst}~\sigma~(\textit{Var}~j) = \sigma~j$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{subst}~\sigma~(\textit{Lam}~t) = {}$\phantom{''} \\

 \phantom{``}$\textit{Lam}~(\textit{subst}~(\lambda n.\> \textrm{case}~n~\textrm{of}~0 \Rightarrow \textit{Var}~0 \mid \textit{Suc}~m \Rightarrow \textit{lift}~(\sigma~m)~1)~t)$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{subst}~\sigma~(\textit{App}~t~u) = \textit{App}~(\textit{subst}~\sigma~t)~(\textit{subst}~\sigma~u)$''

 \postw

 A substitution is a function that maps variable indices to terms. Observe that

 $\sigma$ is a function passed as argument and that Nitpick can't optimize it

 away, because the recursive call for the \textit{Lam} case involves an altered

 version. Also notice the \textit{lift} call, which increments the variable

 indices when moving under a \textit{Lam}.

 A reasonable property to expect of substitution is that it should leave closed

 terms unchanged. Alas, even this simple property does not hold:

 \pre

 \textbf{lemma}~``$\lnot\,\textit{loose}~t~0 \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{subst}~\sigma~t = t$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{verbose}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Trying 8 scopes: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card~nat}~= 1, \textit{card tm}~= 1, and \textit{card} ``$\textit{nat} \Rightarrow \textit{tm}$'' = 1; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card~nat}~= 2, \textit{card tm}~= 2, and \textit{card} ``$\textit{nat} \Rightarrow \textit{tm}$'' = 2; \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\qquad\vdots$ \\[.5\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card~nat}~= 8, \textit{card tm}~= 8, and \textit{card} ``$\textit{nat} \Rightarrow \textit{tm}$'' = 8. \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card~nat}~= 6, \textit{card~tm}~= 6,

 and \textit{card}~``$\textit{nat} \Rightarrow \textit{tm}$''~= 6: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\sigma = \undef(\!\begin{aligned}[t]

 & 0 := \textit{Var}~0,\>

   1 := \textit{Var}~0,\>

   2 := \textit{Var}~0, \\[-2pt]

 & 3 := \textit{Var}~0,\>

   4 := \textit{Var}~0,\>

   5 := \textit{Var}~0)\end{aligned}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $t = \textit{Lam}~(\textit{Lam}~(\textit{Var}~1))$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Total time: $4679$ ms.

 \postw

 Using \textit{eval}, we find out that $\textit{subst}~\sigma~t =

 \textit{Lam}~(\textit{Lam}~(\textit{Var}~0))$. Using the traditional

 $\lambda$-term notation, $t$~is

 $\lambda x\, y.\> x$ whereas $\textit{subst}~\sigma~t$ is $\lambda x\, y.\> y$.

 The bug is in \textit{subst}: The $\textit{lift}~(\sigma~m)~1$ call should be

 replaced with $\textit{lift}~(\sigma~m)~0$.

 An interesting aspect of Nitpick's verbose output is that it assigned inceasing

 cardinalities from 1 to 8 to the type $\textit{nat} \Rightarrow \textit{tm}$.

 For the formula of interest, knowing 6 values of that type was enough to find

 the counterexample. Without boxing, $46\,656$ ($= 6^6$) values must be

 considered, a hopeless undertaking:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{dont\_box}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick ran out of time after checking 4 of 8 scopes.}

 \postw

 {\looseness=-1

 Boxing can be enabled or disabled globally or on a per-type basis using the

 \textit{box} option. Moreover, setting the cardinality of a function or

 product type implicitly enables boxing for that type. Nitpick usually performs

 reasonable choices about which types should be boxed, but option tweaking

 sometimes helps.

 }

 \subsection{Scope Monotonicity}

 \label{scope-monotonicity}

 The \textit{card} option (together with \textit{iter}, \textit{bisim\_depth},

 and \textit{max}) controls which scopes are actually tested. In general, to

 exhaust all models below a certain cardinality bound, the number of scopes that

 Nitpick must consider increases exponentially with the number of type variables

 (and \textbf{typedecl}'d types) occurring in the formula. Given the default

 cardinality specification of 1--8, no fewer than $8^4 = 4096$ scopes must be

 considered for a formula involving $'a$, $'b$, $'c$, and $'d$.

 Fortunately, many formulas exhibit a property called \textsl{scope

 monotonicity}, meaning that if the formula is falsifiable for a given scope,

 it is also falsifiable for all larger scopes \cite[p.~165]{jackson-2006}.

 Consider the formula

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$\textit{length~xs} = \textit{length~ys} \,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{rev}~(\textit{zip~xs~ys}) = \textit{zip~xs}~(\textit{rev~ys})$''

 \postw

 where \textit{xs} is of type $'a~\textit{list}$ and \textit{ys} is of type

 $'b~\textit{list}$. A priori, Nitpick would need to consider 512 scopes to

 exhaust the specification \textit{card}~= 1--8. However, our intuition tells us

 that any counterexample found with a small scope would still be a counterexample

 in a larger scope---by simply ignoring the fresh $'a$ and $'b$ values provided

 by the larger scope. Nitpick comes to the same conclusion after a careful

 inspection of the formula and the relevant definitions:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{verbose}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 The types ``\kern1pt$'a$'' and ``\kern1pt$'b$'' passed the monotonicity test.

 Nitpick might be able to skip some scopes.

  \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Trying 8 scopes: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card} $'a$~= 1, \textit{card} $'b$~= 1,

 \textit{card} \textit{nat}~= 1, \textit{card} ``$('a \times {'}b)$

 \textit{list}''~= 1, \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\quad \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{list}''~= 1, and

 \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'b$ \textit{list}''~= 1. \\

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card} $'a$~= 2, \textit{card} $'b$~= 2,

 \textit{card} \textit{nat}~= 2, \textit{card} ``$('a \times {'}b)$

 \textit{list}''~= 2, \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\quad \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{list}''~= 2, and

 \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'b$ \textit{list}''~= 2. \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\qquad\vdots$ \\[.5\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad \textit{card} $'a$~= 8, \textit{card} $'b$~= 8,

 \textit{card} \textit{nat}~= 8, \textit{card} ``$('a \times {'}b)$

 \textit{list}''~= 8, \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\quad \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{list}''~= 8, and

 \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'b$ \textit{list}''~= 8.

 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Nitpick found a counterexample for

 \textit{card} $'a$~= 5, \textit{card} $'b$~= 5,

 \textit{card} \textit{nat}~= 5, \textit{card} ``$('a \times {'}b)$

 \textit{list}''~= 5, \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{list}''~= 5, and

 \textit{card} ``\kern1pt$'b$ \textit{list}''~= 5:

 \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{xs} = [a_4, a_5]$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{ys} = [b_3, b_3]$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 Total time: 1636 ms.

 \postw

 In theory, it should be sufficient to test a single scope:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{card}~= 8]

 \postw

 However, this is often less efficient in practice and may lead to overly complex

 counterexamples.

 If the monotonicity check fails but we believe that the formula is monotonic (or

 we don't mind missing some counterexamples), we can pass the

 \textit{mono} option. To convince yourself that this option is risky,

 simply consider this example from \S\ref{skolemization}:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\exists g.\; \forall x\Colon 'b.~g~(f~x) = x

  \,\Longrightarrow\, \forall y\Colon {'}a.\; \exists x.~y = f~x$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{mono}] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick found no counterexample.} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape

 Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$~= 2 and \textit{card} $'b$~=~1: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad $\vdots$

 \postw

 (It turns out the formula holds if and only if $\textit{card}~'a \le

 \textit{card}~'b$.) Although this is rarely advisable, the automatic

 monotonicity checks can be disabled by passing \textit{non\_mono}

 (\S\ref{optimizations}).

 As insinuated in \S\ref{natural-numbers-and-integers} and

 \S\ref{inductive-datatypes}, \textit{nat}, \textit{int}, and inductive datatypes

 are normally monotonic and treated as such. The same is true for record types,

 \textit{rat}, \textit{real}, and some \textbf{typedef}'d types. Thus, given the

 cardinality specification 1--8, a formula involving \textit{nat}, \textit{int},

 \textit{int~list}, \textit{rat}, and \textit{rat~list} will lead Nitpick to

 consider only 8~scopes instead of $32\,768$.

 \subsection{Inductive Properties}

 \label{inductive-properties}

 Inductive properties are a particular pain to prove, because the failure to

 establish an induction step can mean several things:

 %

 \begin{enumerate}

 \item The property is invalid.

 \item The property is valid but is too weak to support the induction step.

 \item The property is valid and strong enough; it's just that we haven't found

 the proof yet.

 \end{enumerate}

 %

 Depending on which scenario applies, we would take the appropriate course of

 action:

 %

 \begin{enumerate}

 \item Repair the statement of the property so that it becomes valid.

 \item Generalize the property and/or prove auxiliary properties.

 \item Work harder on a proof.

 \end{enumerate}

 %

 How can we distinguish between the three scenarios? Nitpick's normal mode of

 operation can often detect scenario 1, and Isabelle's automatic tactics help with

 scenario 3. Using appropriate techniques, it is also often possible to use

 Nitpick to identify scenario 2. Consider the following transition system,

 in which natural numbers represent states:

 \prew

 \textbf{inductive\_set}~\textit{reach}~\textbf{where} \\

 ``$(4\Colon\textit{nat}) \in \textit{reach\/}$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\lbrakk n < 4;\> n \in \textit{reach\/}\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, 3 * n + 1 \in \textit{reach\/}$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$n \in \textit{reach} \,\Longrightarrow n + 2 \in \textit{reach\/}$''

 \postw

 We will try to prove that only even numbers are reachable:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$n \in \textit{reach} \,\Longrightarrow\, 2~\textrm{dvd}~n$''

 \postw

 Does this property hold? Nitpick cannot find a counterexample within 30 seconds,

 so let's attempt a proof by induction:

 \prew

 \textbf{apply}~(\textit{induct~set}{:}~\textit{reach\/}) \\

 \textbf{apply}~\textit{auto}

 \postw

 This leaves us in the following proof state:

 \prew

 {\slshape goal (2 subgoals): \\

 \phantom{0}1. ${\bigwedge}n.\;\, \lbrakk n \in \textit{reach\/};\, n < 4;\, 2~\textsl{dvd}~n\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, 2~\textsl{dvd}~\textit{Suc}~(3 * n)$ \\

 \phantom{0}2. ${\bigwedge}n.\;\, \lbrakk n \in \textit{reach\/};\, 2~\textsl{dvd}~n\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, 2~\textsl{dvd}~\textit{Suc}~(\textit{Suc}~n)$

 }

 \postw

 If we run Nitpick on the first subgoal, it still won't find any

 counterexample; and yet, \textit{auto} fails to go further, and \textit{arith}

 is helpless. However, notice the $n \in \textit{reach}$ assumption, which

 strengthens the induction hypothesis but is not immediately usable in the proof.

 If we remove it and invoke Nitpick, this time we get a counterexample:

 \prew

 \textbf{apply}~(\textit{thin\_tac}~``$n \in \textit{reach\/}$'') \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Skolem constant: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $n = 0$

 \postw

 Indeed, 0 < 4, 2 divides 0, but 2 does not divide 1. We can use this information

 to strength the lemma:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$n \in \textit{reach} \,\Longrightarrow\, 2~\textrm{dvd}~n \mathrel{\lor} n \not= 0$''

 \postw

 Unfortunately, the proof by induction still gets stuck, except that Nitpick now

 finds the counterexample $n = 2$. We generalize the lemma further to

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma}~``$n \in \textit{reach} \,\Longrightarrow\, 2~\textrm{dvd}~n \mathrel{\lor} n \ge 4$''

 \postw

 and this time \textit{arith} can finish off the subgoals.

 A similar technique can be employed for structural induction. The

 following mini-formalization of full binary trees will serve as illustration:

 \prew

 \textbf{datatype} $\kern1pt'a$~\textit{bin\_tree} = $\textit{Leaf}~{\kern1pt'a}$ $\mid$ $\textit{Branch}$ ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{bin\_tree}'' ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{bin\_tree}'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{primrec}~\textit{labels}~\textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{labels}~(\textit{Leaf}~a) = \{a\}$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{labels}~(\textit{Branch}~t~u) = \textit{labels}~t \mathrel{\cup} \textit{labels}~u$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{primrec}~\textit{swap}~\textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{swap}~(\textit{Leaf}~c)~a~b =$ \\

 \phantom{``}$(\textrm{if}~c = a~\textrm{then}~\textit{Leaf}~b~\textrm{else~if}~c = b~\textrm{then}~\textit{Leaf}~a~\textrm{else}~\textit{Leaf}~c)$'' $\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{swap}~(\textit{Branch}~t~u)~a~b = \textit{Branch}~(\textit{swap}~t~a~b)~(\textit{swap}~u~a~b)$''

 \postw

 The \textit{labels} function returns the set of labels occurring on leaves of a

 tree, and \textit{swap} exchanges two labels. Intuitively, if two distinct

 labels $a$ and $b$ occur in a tree $t$, they should also occur in the tree

 obtained by swapping $a$ and $b$:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} $``\lbrakk a \in \textit{labels}~t;\, b \in \textit{labels}~t;\, a \not= b\rbrakk {}$ \\

 \phantom{\textbf{lemma} ``}$\,{\Longrightarrow}{\;\,} \textit{labels}~(\textit{swap}~t~a~b) = \textit{labels}~t$''

 \postw

 Nitpick can't find any counterexample, so we proceed with induction

 (this time favoring a more structured style):

 \prew

 \textbf{proof}~(\textit{induct}~$t$) \\

 \hbox{}\quad \textbf{case}~\textit{Leaf}~\textbf{thus}~\textit{?case}~\textbf{by}~\textit{simp} \\

 \textbf{next} \\

 \hbox{}\quad \textbf{case}~$(\textit{Branch}~t~u)$~\textbf{thus} \textit{?case}

 \postw

 Nitpick can't find any counterexample at this point either, but it makes the

 following suggestion:

 \prew

 \slshape

 Hint: To check that the induction hypothesis is general enough, try the following command:

 \textbf{nitpick}~[\textit{non\_std} ``${\kern1pt'a}~\textit{bin\_tree}$'', \textit{show\_consts}].

 \postw

 If we follow the hint, we get a ``nonstandard'' counterexample for the step:

 \prew

 \slshape Nitpick found a nonstandard counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$ = 4: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $a = a_4$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $b = a_3$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $t = \xi_3$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $u = \xi_4$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad {\slshape Constants:} \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{labels} = \undef

     (\!\begin{aligned}[t]%

     & \xi_3 := \{a_4\},\> \xi_4 := \{a_1, a_3\}, \\[-2pt] %% TYPESETTING

     & \textit{Branch}~\xi_3~\xi_3 := \{a_4\}, \\[-2pt]

     & \textit{Branch}~\xi_3~\xi_4 := \{a_1, a_3, a_4\})\end{aligned}$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\lambda x_1.\> \textit{swap}~x_1~a~b = \undef

     (\!\begin{aligned}[t]%

     & \xi_3 := \xi_3,\> \xi_4 := \xi_3, \\[-2pt]

     & \textit{Branch}~\xi_3~\xi_3 := \textit{Branch}~\xi_3~\xi_3, \\[-2pt]

     & \textit{Branch}~\xi_4~\xi_3 := \textit{Branch}~\xi_3~\xi_3)\end{aligned}$ \\[2\smallskipamount]

 The existence of a nonstandard model suggests that the induction hypothesis is not general enough or perhaps

 even wrong. See the ``Inductive Properties'' section of the Nitpick manual for details (``\textit{isabelle doc nitpick}'').

 \postw

 Reading the Nitpick manual is a most excellent idea.

 But what's going on? The \textit{non\_std} ``${\kern1pt'a}~\textit{bin\_tree}$''

 option told the tool to look for nonstandard models of binary trees, which

 means that new ``nonstandard'' trees $\xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots$, are now allowed in

 addition to the standard trees generated by the \textit{Leaf} and

 \textit{Branch} constructors.%

 \footnote{Notice the similarity between allowing nonstandard trees here and

 allowing unreachable states in the preceding example (by removing the ``$n \in

 \textit{reach\/}$'' assumption). In both cases, we effectively enlarge the

 set of objects over which the induction is performed while doing the step

 so as to test the induction hypothesis's strength.}

 The new trees are so nonstandard that we know nothing about them, except what

 the induction hypothesis states and what can be proved about all trees without

 relying on induction or case distinction. The key observation is,

 %

 \begin{quote}

 \textsl{If the induction

 hypothesis is strong enough, the induction step will hold even for nonstandard

 objects, and Nitpick won't find any nonstandard counterexample.}

 \end{quote}

 %

 But here, Nitpick did find some nonstandard trees $t = \xi_3$

 and $u = \xi_4$ such that $a \in \textit{labels}~t$, $b \notin

 \textit{labels}~t$, $a \notin \textit{labels}~u$, and $b \in \textit{labels}~u$.

 Because neither tree contains both $a$ and $b$, the induction hypothesis tells

 us nothing about the labels of $\textit{swap}~t~a~b$ and $\textit{swap}~u~a~b$,

 and as a result we know nothing about the labels of the tree

 $\textit{swap}~(\textit{Branch}~t~u)~a~b$, which by definition equals

 $\textit{Branch}$ $(\textit{swap}~t~a~b)$ $(\textit{swap}~u~a~b)$, whose

 labels are $\textit{labels}$ $(\textit{swap}~t~a~b) \mathrel{\cup}

 \textit{labels}$ $(\textit{swap}~u~a~b)$.

 The solution is to ensure that we always know what the labels of the subtrees

 are in the inductive step, by covering the cases where $a$ and/or~$b$ is not in

 $t$ in the statement of the lemma:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} ``$\textit{labels}~(\textit{swap}~t~a~b) = {}$ \\

 \phantom{\textbf{lemma} ``}$(\textrm{if}~a \in \textit{labels}~t~\textrm{then}$ \nopagebreak \\

 \phantom{\textbf{lemma} ``(\quad}$\textrm{if}~b \in \textit{labels}~t~\textrm{then}~\textit{labels}~t~\textrm{else}~(\textit{labels}~t - \{a\}) \mathrel{\cup} \{b\}$ \\

 \phantom{\textbf{lemma} ``(}$\textrm{else}$ \\

 \phantom{\textbf{lemma} ``(\quad}$\textrm{if}~b \in \textit{labels}~t~\textrm{then}~(\textit{labels}~t - \{b\}) \mathrel{\cup} \{a\}~\textrm{else}~\textit{labels}~t)$''

 \postw

 This time, Nitpick won't find any nonstandard counterexample, and we can perform

 the induction step using \textbf{auto}.

 \section{Case Studies}

 \label{case-studies}

 As a didactic device, the previous section focused mostly on toy formulas whose

 validity can easily be assessed just by looking at the formula. We will now

 review two somewhat more realistic case studies that are within Nitpick's

 reach:\ a context-free grammar modeled by mutually inductive sets and a

 functional implementation of AA trees. The results presented in this

 section were produced with the following settings:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick\_params} [\textit{max\_potential}~= 0,\, \textit{max\_threads} = 2]

 \postw

 \subsection{A Context-Free Grammar}

 \label{a-context-free-grammar}

 Our first case study is taken from section 7.4 in the Isabelle tutorial

 \cite{isa-tutorial}. The following grammar, originally due to Hopcroft and

 Ullman, produces all strings with an equal number of $a$'s and $b$'s:

 \prew

 \begin{tabular}{@{}r@{$\;\,$}c@{$\;\,$}l@{}}

 $S$ & $::=$ & $\epsilon \mid bA \mid aB$ \\

 $A$ & $::=$ & $aS \mid bAA$ \\

 $B$ & $::=$ & $bS \mid aBB$

 \end{tabular}

 \postw

 The intuition behind the grammar is that $A$ generates all string with one more

 $a$ than $b$'s and $B$ generates all strings with one more $b$ than $a$'s.

 The alphabet consists exclusively of $a$'s and $b$'s:

 \prew

 \textbf{datatype} \textit{alphabet}~= $a$ $\mid$ $b$

 \postw

 Strings over the alphabet are represented by \textit{alphabet list}s.

 Nonterminals in the grammar become sets of strings. The production rules

 presented above can be expressed as a mutually inductive definition:

 \prew

 \textbf{inductive\_set} $S$ \textbf{and} $A$ \textbf{and} $B$ \textbf{where} \\

 \textit{R1}:\kern.4em ``$[] \in S$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 \textit{R2}:\kern.4em ``$w \in A\,\Longrightarrow\, b \mathbin{\#} w \in S$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 \textit{R3}:\kern.4em ``$w \in B\,\Longrightarrow\, a \mathbin{\#} w \in S$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 \textit{R4}:\kern.4em ``$w \in S\,\Longrightarrow\, a \mathbin{\#} w \in A$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 \textit{R5}:\kern.4em ``$w \in S\,\Longrightarrow\, b \mathbin{\#} w \in S$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 \textit{R6}:\kern.4em ``$\lbrakk v \in B;\> v \in B\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, a \mathbin{\#} v \mathbin{@} w \in B$''

 \postw

 The conversion of the grammar into the inductive definition was done manually by

 Joe Blow, an underpaid undergraduate student. As a result, some errors might

 have sneaked in.

 Debugging faulty specifications is at the heart of Nitpick's \textsl{raison

 d'\^etre}. A good approach is to state desirable properties of the specification

 (here, that $S$ is exactly the set of strings over $\{a, b\}$ with as many $a$'s

 as $b$'s) and check them with Nitpick. If the properties are correctly stated,

 counterexamples will point to bugs in the specification. For our grammar

 example, we will proceed in two steps, separating the soundness and the

 completeness of the set $S$. First, soundness:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem}~\textit{S\_sound}: \\

 ``$w \in S \longrightarrow \textit{length}~[x\mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = a] =

   \textit{length}~[x\mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = b]$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $w = [b]$

 \postw

 It would seem that $[b] \in S$. How could this be? An inspection of the

 introduction rules reveals that the only rule with a right-hand side of the form

 $b \mathbin{\#} {\ldots} \in S$ that could have introduced $[b]$ into $S$ is

 \textit{R5}:

 \prew

 ``$w \in S\,\Longrightarrow\, b \mathbin{\#} w \in S$''

 \postw

 On closer inspection, we can see that this rule is wrong. To match the

 production $B ::= bS$, the second $S$ should be a $B$. We fix the typo and try

 again:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $w = [a, a, b]$

 \postw

 Some detective work is necessary to find out what went wrong here. To get $[a,

 a, b] \in S$, we need $[a, b] \in B$ by \textit{R3}, which in turn can only come

 from \textit{R6}:

 \prew

 ``$\lbrakk v \in B;\> v \in B\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, a \mathbin{\#} v \mathbin{@} w \in B$''

 \postw

 Now, this formula must be wrong: The same assumption occurs twice, and the

 variable $w$ is unconstrained. Clearly, one of the two occurrences of $v$ in

 the assumptions should have been a $w$.

 With the correction made, we don't get any counterexample from Nitpick. Let's

 move on and check completeness:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem}~\textit{S\_complete}: \\

 ``$\textit{length}~[x\mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = a] =

    \textit{length}~[x\mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = b]

   \longrightarrow w \in S$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variable: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $w = [b, b, a, a]$

 \postw

 Apparently, $[b, b, a, a] \notin S$, even though it has the same numbers of

 $a$'s and $b$'s. But since our inductive definition passed the soundness check,

 the introduction rules we have are probably correct. Perhaps we simply lack an

 introduction rule. Comparing the grammar with the inductive definition, our

 suspicion is confirmed: Joe Blow simply forgot the production $A ::= bAA$,

 without which the grammar cannot generate two or more $b$'s in a row. So we add

 the rule

 \prew

 ``$\lbrakk v \in A;\> w \in A\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, b \mathbin{\#} v \mathbin{@} w \in A$''

 \postw

 With this last change, we don't get any counterexamples from Nitpick for either

 soundness or completeness. We can even generalize our result to cover $A$ and

 $B$ as well:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem} \textit{S\_A\_B\_sound\_and\_complete}: \\

 ``$w \in S \longleftrightarrow \textit{length}~[x \mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = a] = \textit{length}~[x \mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = b]$'' \\

 ``$w \in A \longleftrightarrow \textit{length}~[x \mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = a] = \textit{length}~[x \mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = b] + 1$'' \\

 ``$w \in B \longleftrightarrow \textit{length}~[x \mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = b] = \textit{length}~[x \mathbin{\leftarrow} w.\; x = a] + 1$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found no counterexample.

 \postw

 \subsection{AA Trees}

 \label{aa-trees}

 AA trees are a kind of balanced trees discovered by Arne Andersson that provide

 similar performance to red-black trees, but with a simpler implementation

 \cite{andersson-1993}. They can be used to store sets of elements equipped with

 a total order $<$. We start by defining the datatype and some basic extractor

 functions:

 \prew

 \textbf{datatype} $'a$~\textit{aa\_tree} = \\

 \hbox{}\quad $\Lambda$ $\mid$ $N$ ``\kern1pt$'a\Colon \textit{linorder}$'' \textit{nat} ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{aa\_tree}'' ``\kern1pt$'a$ \textit{aa\_tree}''  \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{data} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{data}~\Lambda = \undef$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{data}~(N~x~\_~\_~\_) = x$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{dataset} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{dataset}~\Lambda = \{\}$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{dataset}~(N~x~\_~t~u) = \{x\} \cup \textit{dataset}~t \mathrel{\cup} \textit{dataset}~u$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{level} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{level}~\Lambda = 0$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{level}~(N~\_~k~\_~\_) = k$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{left} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{left}~\Lambda = \Lambda$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{left}~(N~\_~\_~t~\_) = t$'' \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{right} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{right}~\Lambda = \Lambda$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{right}~(N~\_~\_~\_~u) = u$''

 \postw

 The wellformedness criterion for AA trees is fairly complex. Wikipedia states it

 as follows \cite{wikipedia-2009-aa-trees}:

 \kern.2\parskip %% TYPESETTING

 \pre

 Each node has a level field, and the following invariants must remain true for

 the tree to be valid:

 \raggedright

 \kern-.4\parskip %% TYPESETTING

 \begin{enum}

 \item[]

 \begin{enum}

 \item[1.] The level of a leaf node is one.

 \item[2.] The level of a left child is strictly less than that of its parent.

 \item[3.] The level of a right child is less than or equal to that of its parent.

 \item[4.] The level of a right grandchild is strictly less than that of its grandparent.

 \item[5.] Every node of level greater than one must have two children.

 \end{enum}

 \end{enum}

 \post

 \kern.4\parskip %% TYPESETTING

 The \textit{wf} predicate formalizes this description:

 \prew

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{wf} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{wf}~\Lambda = \textit{True}$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{wf}~(N~\_~k~t~u) =$ \\

 \phantom{``}$(\textrm{if}~t = \Lambda~\textrm{then}$ \\

 \phantom{``$(\quad$}$k = 1 \mathrel{\land} (u = \Lambda \mathrel{\lor} (\textit{level}~u = 1 \mathrel{\land} \textit{left}~u = \Lambda \mathrel{\land} \textit{right}~u = \Lambda))$ \\

 \phantom{``$($}$\textrm{else}$ \\

 \hbox{}\phantom{``$(\quad$}$\textit{wf}~t \mathrel{\land} \textit{wf}~u

 \mathrel{\land} u \not= \Lambda \mathrel{\land} \textit{level}~t < k

 \mathrel{\land} \textit{level}~u \le k$ \\

 \hbox{}\phantom{``$(\quad$}${\land}\; \textit{level}~(\textit{right}~u) < k)$''

 \postw

 Rebalancing the tree upon insertion and removal of elements is performed by two

 auxiliary functions called \textit{skew} and \textit{split}, defined below:

 \prew

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{skew} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{skew}~\Lambda = \Lambda$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{skew}~(N~x~k~t~u) = {}$ \\

 \phantom{``}$(\textrm{if}~t \not= \Lambda \mathrel{\land} k =

 \textit{level}~t~\textrm{then}$ \\

 \phantom{``(\quad}$N~(\textit{data}~t)~k~(\textit{left}~t)~(N~x~k~

 (\textit{right}~t)~u)$ \\

 \phantom{``(}$\textrm{else}$ \\

 \phantom{``(\quad}$N~x~k~t~u)$''

 \postw

 \prew

 \textbf{primrec} \textit{split} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{split}~\Lambda = \Lambda$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{split}~(N~x~k~t~u) = {}$ \\

 \phantom{``}$(\textrm{if}~u \not= \Lambda \mathrel{\land} k =

 \textit{level}~(\textit{right}~u)~\textrm{then}$ \\

 \phantom{``(\quad}$N~(\textit{data}~u)~(\textit{Suc}~k)~

 (N~x~k~t~(\textit{left}~u))~(\textit{right}~u)$ \\

 \phantom{``(}$\textrm{else}$ \\

 \phantom{``(\quad}$N~x~k~t~u)$''

 \postw

 Performing a \textit{skew} or a \textit{split} should have no impact on the set

 of elements stored in the tree:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem}~\textit{dataset\_skew\_split}:\\

 ``$\textit{dataset}~(\textit{skew}~t) = \textit{dataset}~t$'' \\

 ``$\textit{dataset}~(\textit{split}~t) = \textit{dataset}~t$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick ran out of time after checking 7 of 8 scopes.}

 \postw

 Furthermore, applying \textit{skew} or \textit{split} to a well-formed tree

 should not alter the tree:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem}~\textit{wf\_skew\_split}:\\

 ``$\textit{wf}~t\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{skew}~t = t$'' \\

 ``$\textit{wf}~t\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{split}~t = t$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick found no counterexample.}

 \postw

 Insertion is implemented recursively. It preserves the sort order:

 \prew

 \textbf{primrec}~\textit{insort} \textbf{where} \\

 ``$\textit{insort}~\Lambda~x = N~x~1~\Lambda~\Lambda$'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``$\textit{insort}~(N~y~k~t~u)~x =$ \\

 \phantom{``}$({*}~(\textit{split} \circ \textit{skew})~{*})~(N~y~k~(\textrm{if}~x < y~\textrm{then}~\textit{insort}~t~x~\textrm{else}~t)$ \\

 \phantom{``$({*}~(\textit{split} \circ \textit{skew})~{*})~(N~y~k~$}$(\textrm{if}~x > y~\textrm{then}~\textit{insort}~u~x~\textrm{else}~u))$''

 \postw

 Notice that we deliberately commented out the application of \textit{skew} and

 \textit{split}. Let's see if this causes any problems:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem}~\textit{wf\_insort}:\kern.4em ``$\textit{wf}~t\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{wf}~(\textit{insort}~t~x)$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample for \textit{card} $'a$ = 4: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $t = N~a_3~1~\Lambda~\Lambda$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $x = a_4$

 \postw

 It's hard to see why this is a counterexample. To improve readability, we will

 restrict the theorem to \textit{nat}, so that we don't need to look up the value

 of the $\textit{op}~{<}$ constant to find out which element is smaller than the

 other. In addition, we will tell Nitpick to display the value of

 $\textit{insort}~t~x$ using the \textit{eval} option. This gives

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem} \textit{wf\_insort\_nat}:\kern.4em ``$\textit{wf}~t\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{wf}~(\textit{insort}~t~(x\Colon\textit{nat}))$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} [\textit{eval} = ``$\textit{insort}~t~x$''] \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \slshape Nitpick found a counterexample: \\[2\smallskipamount]

 \hbox{}\qquad Free variables: \nopagebreak \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $t = N~1~1~\Lambda~\Lambda$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $x = 0$ \\

 \hbox{}\qquad Evaluated term: \\

 \hbox{}\qquad\qquad $\textit{insort}~t~x = N~1~1~(N~0~1~\Lambda~\Lambda)~\Lambda$

 \postw

 Nitpick's output reveals that the element $0$ was added as a left child of $1$,

 where both have a level of 1. This violates the second AA tree invariant, which

 states that a left child's level must be less than its parent's. This shouldn't

 come as a surprise, considering that we commented out the tree rebalancing code.

 Reintroducing the code seems to solve the problem:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem}~\textit{wf\_insort}:\kern.4em ``$\textit{wf}~t\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{wf}~(\textit{insort}~t~x)$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick ran out of time after checking 6 of 8 scopes.}

 \postw

 Insertion should transform the set of elements represented by the tree in the

 obvious way:

 \prew

 \textbf{theorem} \textit{dataset\_insort}:\kern.4em

 ``$\textit{dataset}~(\textit{insort}~t~x) = \{x\} \cup \textit{dataset}~t$'' \\

 \textbf{nitpick} \\[2\smallskipamount]

 {\slshape Nitpick ran out of time after checking 5 of 8 scopes.}

 \postw

 We could continue like this and sketch a complete theory of AA trees without

 performing a single proof. Once the definitions and main theorems are in place

 and have been thoroughly tested using Nitpick, we could start working on the

 proofs. Developing theories this way usually saves time, because faulty theorems

 and definitions are discovered much earlier in the process.

 \section{Option Reference}

 \label{option-reference}

 \def\flushitem#1{\item[]\noindent\kern-\leftmargin \textbf{#1}}

 \def\qty#1{$\left<\textit{#1}\right>$}

 \def\qtybf#1{$\mathbf{\left<\textbf{\textit{#1}}\right>}$}

 \def\optrue#1#2{\flushitem{\textit{#1} $\bigl[$= \qtybf{bool}$\bigr]$\quad [\textit{true}]\hfill (neg.: \textit{#2})}\nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 \def\opfalse#1#2{\flushitem{\textit{#1} $\bigl[$= \qtybf{bool}$\bigr]$\quad [\textit{false}]\hfill (neg.: \textit{#2})}\nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 \def\opsmart#1#2{\flushitem{\textit{#1} $\bigl[$= \qtybf{bool\_or\_smart}$\bigr]$\quad [\textit{smart}]\hfill (neg.: \textit{#2})}\nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 \def\opnodefault#1#2{\flushitem{\textit{#1} = \qtybf{#2}} \nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 \def\opdefault#1#2#3{\flushitem{\textit{#1} = \qtybf{#2}\quad [\textit{#3}]} \nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 \def\oparg#1#2#3{\flushitem{\textit{#1} \qtybf{#2} = \qtybf{#3}} \nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 \def\opargbool#1#2#3{\flushitem{\textit{#1} \qtybf{#2} $\bigl[$= \qtybf{bool}$\bigr]$\hfill (neg.: \textit{#3})}\nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 \def\opargboolorsmart#1#2#3{\flushitem{\textit{#1} \qtybf{#2} $\bigl[$= \qtybf{bool\_or\_smart}$\bigr]$\hfill (neg.: \textit{#3})}\nopagebreak\\[\parskip]}

 Nitpick's behavior can be influenced by various options, which can be specified

 in brackets after the \textbf{nitpick} command. Default values can be set

 using \textbf{nitpick\_\allowbreak params}. For example:

 \prew

 \textbf{nitpick\_params} [\textit{verbose}, \,\textit{timeout} = 60$\,s$]

 \postw

 The options are categorized as follows:\ mode of operation

 (\S\ref{mode-of-operation}), scope of search (\S\ref{scope-of-search}), output

 format (\S\ref{output-format}), automatic counterexample checks

 (\S\ref{authentication}), optimizations

 (\S\ref{optimizations}), and timeouts (\S\ref{timeouts}).

 You can instruct Nitpick to run automatically on newly entered theorems by

 enabling the ``Auto Nitpick'' option from the ``Isabelle'' menu in Proof

 General. For automatic runs, \textit{user\_axioms} (\S\ref{mode-of-operation})

 and \textit{assms} (\S\ref{mode-of-operation}) are implicitly enabled,

 \textit{blocking} (\S\ref{mode-of-operation}), \textit{verbose}

 (\S\ref{output-format}), and \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}) are

 disabled, \textit{max\_potential} (\S\ref{output-format}) is taken to be 0, and

 \textit{timeout} (\S\ref{timeouts}) is superseded by the ``Auto Counterexample

 Time Limit'' in Proof General's ``Isabelle'' menu. Nitpick's output is also more

 concise.

 The number of options can be overwhelming at first glance. Do not let that worry

 you: Nitpick's defaults have been chosen so that it almost always does the right

 thing, and the most important options have been covered in context in

 \S\ref{first-steps}.

 The descriptions below refer to the following syntactic quantities:

 \begin{enum}

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{string}: A string.

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{bool}: \textit{true} or \textit{false}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{bool\_or\_smart}: \textit{true}, \textit{false}, or \textit{smart}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{int}: An integer. Negative integers are prefixed with a hyphen.

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{int\_or\_smart}: An integer or \textit{smart}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{int\_range}: An integer (e.g., 3) or a range

 of nonnegative integers (e.g., $1$--$4$). The range symbol `--' can be entered as \texttt{-} (hyphen) or \texttt{\char`\\\char`\<midarrow\char`\>}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{int\_seq}: A comma-separated sequence of ranges of integers (e.g.,~1{,}3{,}\allowbreak6--8).

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{time}: An integer followed by $\textit{min}$ (minutes), $s$ (seconds), or \textit{ms}

 (milliseconds), or the keyword \textit{none} ($\infty$ years).

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{const}: The name of a HOL constant.

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{term}: A HOL term (e.g., ``$f~x$'').

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{term\_list}: A space-separated list of HOL terms (e.g.,

 ``$f~x$''~``$g~y$'').

 \item[$\bullet$] \qtybf{type}: A HOL type.

 \end{enum}

 Default values are indicated in square brackets. Boolean options have a negated

 counterpart (e.g., \textit{blocking} vs.\ \textit{no\_blocking}). When setting

 Boolean options, ``= \textit{true}'' may be omitted.

 \subsection{Mode of Operation}

 \label{mode-of-operation}

 \begin{enum}

 \optrue{blocking}{non\_blocking}

 Specifies whether the \textbf{nitpick} command should operate synchronously.

 The asynchronous (non-blocking) mode lets the user start proving the putative

 theorem while Nitpick looks for a counterexample, but it can also be more

 confusing. For technical reasons, automatic runs currently always block.

 \optrue{falsify}{satisfy}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should look for falsifying examples (countermodels) or

 satisfying examples (models). This manual assumes throughout that

 \textit{falsify} is enabled.

 \opsmart{user\_axioms}{no\_user\_axioms}

 Specifies whether the user-defined axioms (specified using 

 \textbf{axiomatization} and \textbf{axioms}) should be considered. If the option

 is set to \textit{smart}, Nitpick performs an ad hoc axiom selection based on

 the constants that occur in the formula to falsify. The option is implicitly set

 to \textit{true} for automatic runs.

 \textbf{Warning:} If the option is set to \textit{true}, Nitpick might

 nonetheless ignore some polymorphic axioms. Counterexamples generated under

 these conditions are tagged as ``likely genuine.'' The \textit{debug}

 (\S\ref{output-format}) option can be used to find out which axioms were

 considered.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{assms} (\S\ref{mode-of-operation}) and \textit{debug}

 (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \optrue{assms}{no\_assms}

 Specifies whether the relevant assumptions in structured proof should be

 considered. The option is implicitly enabled for automatic runs.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{user\_axioms} (\S\ref{mode-of-operation}).}

 \opfalse{overlord}{no\_overlord}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should put its temporary files in

 \texttt{\$ISABELLE\_\allowbreak HOME\_\allowbreak USER}, which is useful for

 debugging Nitpick but also unsafe if several instances of the tool are run

 simultaneously. The files are identified by the extensions

 \texttt{.kki}, \texttt{.cnf}, \texttt{.out}, and

 \texttt{.err}; you may safely remove them after Nitpick has run.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \end{enum}

 \subsection{Scope of Search}

 \label{scope-of-search}

 \begin{enum}

 \oparg{card}{type}{int\_seq}

 Specifies the sequence of cardinalities to use for a given type.

 For free types, and often also for \textbf{typedecl}'d types, it usually makes

 sense to specify cardinalities as a range of the form \textit{$1$--$n$}.

 Although function and product types are normally mapped directly to the

 corresponding Kodkod concepts, setting

 the cardinality of such types is also allowed and implicitly enables ``boxing''

 for them, as explained in the description of the \textit{box}~\qty{type}

 and \textit{box} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}) options.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{mono} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}).}

 \opdefault{card}{int\_seq}{$\mathbf{1}$--$\mathbf{8}$}

 Specifies the default sequence of cardinalities to use. This can be overridden

 on a per-type basis using the \textit{card}~\qty{type} option described above.

 \oparg{max}{const}{int\_seq}

 Specifies the sequence of maximum multiplicities to use for a given

 (co)in\-duc\-tive datatype constructor. A constructor's multiplicity is the

 number of distinct values that it can construct. Nonsensical values (e.g.,

 \textit{max}~[]~$=$~2) are silently repaired. This option is only available for

 datatypes equipped with several constructors.

 \opnodefault{max}{int\_seq}

 Specifies the default sequence of maximum multiplicities to use for

 (co)in\-duc\-tive datatype constructors. This can be overridden on a per-constructor

 basis using the \textit{max}~\qty{const} option described above.

 \opsmart{binary\_ints}{unary\_ints}

 Specifies whether natural numbers and integers should be encoded using a unary

 or binary notation. In unary mode, the cardinality fully specifies the subset

 used to approximate the type. For example:

 %

 $$\hbox{\begin{tabular}{@{}rll@{}}%

 \textit{card nat} = 4 & induces & $\{0,\, 1,\, 2,\, 3\}$ \\

 \textit{card int} = 4 & induces & $\{-1,\, 0,\, +1,\, +2\}$ \\

 \textit{card int} = 5 & induces & $\{-2,\, -1,\, 0,\, +1,\, +2\}.$%

 \end{tabular}}$$

 %

 In general:

 %

 $$\hbox{\begin{tabular}{@{}rll@{}}%

 \textit{card nat} = $K$ & induces & $\{0,\, \ldots,\, K - 1\}$ \\

 \textit{card int} = $K$ & induces & $\{-\lceil K/2 \rceil + 1,\, \ldots,\, +\lfloor K/2 \rfloor\}.$%

 \end{tabular}}$$

 %

 In binary mode, the cardinality specifies the number of distinct values that can

 be constructed. Each of these value is represented by a bit pattern whose length

 is specified by the \textit{bits} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}) option. By default,

 Nitpick attempts to choose the more appropriate encoding by inspecting the

 formula at hand, preferring the binary notation for problems involving

 multiplicative operators or large constants.

 \textbf{Warning:} For technical reasons, Nitpick always reverts to unary for

 problems that refer to the types \textit{rat} or \textit{real} or the constants

 \textit{Suc}, \textit{gcd}, or \textit{lcm}.

 {\small See also \textit{bits} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}) and

 \textit{show\_datatypes} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \opdefault{bits}{int\_seq}{$\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2},\mathbf{3},\mathbf{4},\mathbf{6},\mathbf{8},\mathbf{10},\mathbf{12}$}

 Specifies the number of bits to use to represent natural numbers and integers in

 binary, excluding the sign bit. The minimum is 1 and the maximum is 31.

 {\small See also \textit{binary\_ints} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}).}

 \opargboolorsmart{wf}{const}{non\_wf}

 Specifies whether the specified (co)in\-duc\-tively defined predicate is

 well-founded. The option can take the following values:

 \begin{enum}

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{true}}: Tentatively treat the (co)in\-duc\-tive

 predicate as if it were well-founded. Since this is generally not sound when the

 predicate is not well-founded, the counterexamples are tagged as ``likely

 genuine.''

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{false}}: Treat the (co)in\-duc\-tive predicate

 as if it were not well-founded. The predicate is then unrolled as prescribed by

 the \textit{star\_linear\_preds}, \textit{iter}~\qty{const}, and \textit{iter}

 options.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{smart}}: Try to prove that the inductive

 predicate is well-founded using Isabelle's \textit{lexicographic\_order} and

 \textit{size\_change} tactics. If this succeeds (or the predicate occurs with an

 appropriate polarity in the formula to falsify), use an efficient fixed point

 equation as specification of the predicate; otherwise, unroll the predicates

 according to the \textit{iter}~\qty{const} and \textit{iter} options.

 \end{enum}

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{iter} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}),

 \textit{star\_linear\_preds} (\S\ref{optimizations}), and \textit{tac\_timeout}

 (\S\ref{timeouts}).}

 \opsmart{wf}{non\_wf}

 Specifies the default wellfoundedness setting to use. This can be overridden on

 a per-predicate basis using the \textit{wf}~\qty{const} option above.

 \oparg{iter}{const}{int\_seq}

 Specifies the sequence of iteration counts to use when unrolling a given

 (co)in\-duc\-tive predicate. By default, unrolling is applied for inductive

 predicates that occur negatively and coinductive predicates that occur

 positively in the formula to falsify and that cannot be proved to be

 well-founded, but this behavior is influenced by the \textit{wf} option. The

 iteration counts are automatically bounded by the cardinality of the predicate's

 domain.

 {\small See also \textit{wf} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}) and

 \textit{star\_linear\_preds} (\S\ref{optimizations}).}

 \opdefault{iter}{int\_seq}{$\mathbf{1{,}2{,}4{,}8{,}12{,}16{,}24{,}32}$}

 Specifies the sequence of iteration counts to use when unrolling (co)in\-duc\-tive

 predicates. This can be overridden on a per-predicate basis using the

 \textit{iter} \qty{const} option above.

 \opdefault{bisim\_depth}{int\_seq}{$\mathbf{7}$}

 Specifies the sequence of iteration counts to use when unrolling the

 bisimilarity predicate generated by Nitpick for coinductive datatypes. A value

 of $-1$ means that no predicate is generated, in which case Nitpick performs an

 after-the-fact check to see if the known coinductive datatype values are

 bidissimilar. If two values are found to be bisimilar, the counterexample is

 tagged as ``likely genuine.'' The iteration counts are automatically bounded by

 the sum of the cardinalities of the coinductive datatypes occurring in the

 formula to falsify.

 \opargboolorsmart{box}{type}{dont\_box}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should attempt to wrap (``box'') a given function or

 product type in an isomorphic datatype internally. Boxing is an effective mean

 to reduce the search space and speed up Nitpick, because the isomorphic datatype

 is approximated by a subset of the possible function or pair values;

 like other drastic optimizations, it can also prevent the discovery of

 counterexamples. The option can take the following values:

 \begin{enum}

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{true}}: Box the specified type whenever

 practicable.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{false}}: Never box the type.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{smart}}: Box the type only in contexts where it

 is likely to help. For example, $n$-tuples where $n > 2$ and arguments to

 higher-order functions are good candidates for boxing.

 \end{enum}

 Setting the \textit{card}~\qty{type} option for a function or product type

 implicitly enables boxing for that type.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{verbose} (\S\ref{output-format})

 and \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \opsmart{box}{dont\_box}

 Specifies the default boxing setting to use. This can be overridden on a

 per-type basis using the \textit{box}~\qty{type} option described above.

 \opargboolorsmart{mono}{type}{non\_mono}

 Specifies whether the given type should be considered monotonic when

 enumerating scopes. If the option is set to \textit{smart}, Nitpick performs a

 monotonicity check on the type. Setting this option to \textit{true} can reduce

 the number of scopes tried, but it also diminishes the theoretical chance of

 finding a counterexample, as demonstrated in \S\ref{scope-monotonicity}.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{card} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}),

 \textit{merge\_type\_vars} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}), and \textit{verbose}

 (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \opsmart{mono}{non\_box}

 Specifies the default monotonicity setting to use. This can be overridden on a

 per-type basis using the \textit{mono}~\qty{type} option described above.

 \opfalse{merge\_type\_vars}{dont\_merge\_type\_vars}

 Specifies whether type variables with the same sort constraints should be

 merged. Setting this option to \textit{true} can reduce the number of scopes

 tried and the size of the generated Kodkod formulas, but it also diminishes the

 theoretical chance of finding a counterexample.

 {\small See also \textit{mono} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}).}

 \opargbool{std}{type}{non\_std}

 Specifies whether the given type should be given standard models.

 Nonstandard models are unsound but can help debug inductive arguments,

 as explained in \S\ref{inductive-properties}.

 \optrue{std}{non\_std}

 Specifies the default standardness to use. This can be overridden on a per-type

 basis using the \textit{std}~\qty{type} option described above.

 \end{enum}

 \subsection{Output Format}

 \label{output-format}

 \begin{enum}

 \opfalse{verbose}{quiet}

 Specifies whether the \textbf{nitpick} command should explain what it does. This

 option is useful to determine which scopes are tried or which SAT solver is

 used. This option is implicitly disabled for automatic runs.

 \opfalse{debug}{no\_debug}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should display additional debugging information beyond

 what \textit{verbose} already displays. Enabling \textit{debug} also enables

 \textit{verbose} and \textit{show\_all} behind the scenes. The \textit{debug}

 option is implicitly disabled for automatic runs.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{overlord} (\S\ref{mode-of-operation}) and

 \textit{batch\_size} (\S\ref{optimizations}).}

 \optrue{show\_skolems}{hide\_skolem}

 Specifies whether the values of Skolem constants should be displayed as part of

 counterexamples. Skolem constants correspond to bound variables in the original

 formula and usually help us to understand why the counterexample falsifies the

 formula.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{skolemize} (\S\ref{optimizations}).}

 \opfalse{show\_datatypes}{hide\_datatypes}

 Specifies whether the subsets used to approximate (co)in\-duc\-tive datatypes should

 be displayed as part of counterexamples. Such subsets are sometimes helpful when

 investigating whether a potential counterexample is genuine or spurious, but

 their potential for clutter is real.

 \opfalse{show\_consts}{hide\_consts}

 Specifies whether the values of constants occurring in the formula (including

 its axioms) should be displayed along with any counterexample. These values are

 sometimes helpful when investigating why a counterexample is

 genuine, but they can clutter the output.

 \opfalse{show\_all}{dont\_show\_all}

 Enabling this option effectively enables \textit{show\_skolems},

 \textit{show\_datatypes}, and \textit{show\_consts}.

 \opdefault{max\_potential}{int}{$\mathbf{1}$}

 Specifies the maximum number of potential counterexamples to display. Setting

 this option to 0 speeds up the search for a genuine counterexample. This option

 is implicitly set to 0 for automatic runs. If you set this option to a value

 greater than 1, you will need an incremental SAT solver: For efficiency, it is

 recommended to install the JNI version of MiniSat and set \textit{sat\_solver} =

 \textit{MiniSatJNI}. Also be aware that many of the counterexamples may look

 identical, unless the \textit{show\_all} (\S\ref{output-format}) option is

 enabled.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{check\_potential} (\S\ref{authentication}) and

 \textit{sat\_solver} (\S\ref{optimizations}).}

 \opdefault{max\_genuine}{int}{$\mathbf{1}$}

 Specifies the maximum number of genuine counterexamples to display. If you set

 this option to a value greater than 1, you will need an incremental SAT solver:

 For efficiency, it is recommended to install the JNI version of MiniSat and set

 \textit{sat\_solver} = \textit{MiniSatJNI}. Also be aware that many of the

 counterexamples may look identical, unless the \textit{show\_all}

 (\S\ref{output-format}) option is enabled.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{check\_genuine} (\S\ref{authentication}) and

 \textit{sat\_solver} (\S\ref{optimizations}).}

 \opnodefault{eval}{term\_list}

 Specifies the list of terms whose values should be displayed along with

 counterexamples. This option suffers from an ``observer effect'': Nitpick might

 find different counterexamples for different values of this option.

 \oparg{format}{term}{int\_seq}

 Specifies how to uncurry the value displayed for a variable or constant.

 Uncurrying sometimes increases the readability of the output for high-arity

 functions. For example, given the variable $y \mathbin{\Colon} {'a}\Rightarrow

 {'b}\Rightarrow {'c}\Rightarrow {'d}\Rightarrow {'e}\Rightarrow {'f}\Rightarrow

 {'g}$, setting \textit{format}~$y$ = 3 tells Nitpick to group the last three

 arguments, as if the type had been ${'a}\Rightarrow {'b}\Rightarrow

 {'c}\Rightarrow {'d}\times {'e}\times {'f}\Rightarrow {'g}$. In general, a list

 of values $n_1,\ldots,n_k$ tells Nitpick to show the last $n_k$ arguments as an

 $n_k$-tuple, the previous $n_{k-1}$ arguments as an $n_{k-1}$-tuple, and so on;

 arguments that are not accounted for are left alone, as if the specification had

 been $1,\ldots,1,n_1,\ldots,n_k$.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{uncurry} (\S\ref{optimizations}).}

 \opdefault{format}{int\_seq}{$\mathbf{1}$}

 Specifies the default format to use. Irrespective of the default format, the

 extra arguments to a Skolem constant corresponding to the outer bound variables

 are kept separated from the remaining arguments, the \textbf{for} arguments of

 an inductive definitions are kept separated from the remaining arguments, and

 the iteration counter of an unrolled inductive definition is shown alone. The

 default format can be overridden on a per-variable or per-constant basis using

 the \textit{format}~\qty{term} option described above.

 \end{enum}

 %% MARK: Authentication

 \subsection{Authentication}

 \label{authentication}

 \begin{enum}

 \opfalse{check\_potential}{trust\_potential}

 Specifies whether potential counterexamples should be given to Isabelle's

 \textit{auto} tactic to assess their validity. If a potential counterexample is

 shown to be genuine, Nitpick displays a message to this effect and terminates.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{max\_potential} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \opfalse{check\_genuine}{trust\_genuine}

 Specifies whether genuine and likely genuine counterexamples should be given to

 Isabelle's \textit{auto} tactic to assess their validity. If a ``genuine''

 counterexample is shown to be spurious, the user is kindly asked to send a bug

 report to the author at

 \texttt{blan{\color{white}nospam}\kern-\wd\boxA{}chette@in.tum.de}.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{max\_genuine} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \opnodefault{expect}{string}

 Specifies the expected outcome, which must be one of the following:

 \begin{enum}

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{genuine}}: Nitpick found a genuine counterexample.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{likely\_genuine}}: Nitpick found a ``likely

 genuine'' counterexample (i.e., a counterexample that is genuine unless

 it contradicts a missing axiom or a dangerous option was used inappropriately).

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{potential}}: Nitpick found a potential counterexample.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{none}}: Nitpick found no counterexample.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{unknown}}: Nitpick encountered some problem (e.g.,

 Kodkod ran out of memory).

 \end{enum}

 Nitpick emits an error if the actual outcome differs from the expected outcome.

 This option is useful for regression testing.

 \end{enum}

 \subsection{Optimizations}

 \label{optimizations}

 \def\cpp{C\nobreak\raisebox{.1ex}{+}\nobreak\raisebox{.1ex}{+}}

 \sloppy

 \begin{enum}

 \opdefault{sat\_solver}{string}{smart}

 Specifies which SAT solver to use. SAT solvers implemented in C or \cpp{} tend

 to be faster than their Java counterparts, but they can be more difficult to

 install. Also, if you set the \textit{max\_potential} (\S\ref{output-format}) or

 \textit{max\_genuine} (\S\ref{output-format}) option to a value greater than 1,

 you will need an incremental SAT solver, such as \textit{MiniSatJNI}

 (recommended) or \textit{SAT4J}.

 The supported solvers are listed below:

 \begin{enum}

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{MiniSat}}: MiniSat is an efficient solver

 written in \cpp{}. To use MiniSat, set the environment variable

 \texttt{MINISAT\_HOME} to the directory that contains the \texttt{minisat}

 executable. The \cpp{} sources and executables for MiniSat are available at

 \url{http://minisat.se/MiniSat.html}. Nitpick has been tested with versions 1.14

 and 2.0 beta (2007-07-21).

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{MiniSatJNI}}: The JNI (Java Native Interface)

 version of MiniSat is bundled in \texttt{nativesolver.\allowbreak tgz}, which

 you will find on Kodkod's web site \cite{kodkod-2009}. Unlike the standard

 version of MiniSat, the JNI version can be used incrementally.

 %%% No longer true:

 %%% "It is bundled with Kodkodi and requires no further installation or

 %%% configuration steps. Alternatively,"

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{PicoSAT}}: PicoSAT is an efficient solver

 written in C. You can install a standard version of

 PicoSAT and set the environment variable \texttt{PICOSAT\_HOME} to the directory

 that contains the \texttt{picosat} executable. The C sources for PicoSAT are

 available at \url{http://fmv.jku.at/picosat/} and are also bundled with Kodkodi.

 Nitpick has been tested with version 913.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{zChaff}}: zChaff is an efficient solver written

 in \cpp{}. To use zChaff, set the environment variable \texttt{ZCHAFF\_HOME} to

 the directory that contains the \texttt{zchaff} executable. The \cpp{} sources

 and executables for zChaff are available at

 \url{http://www.princeton.edu/~chaff/zchaff.html}. Nitpick has been tested with

 versions 2004-05-13, 2004-11-15, and 2007-03-12.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{zChaffJNI}}: The JNI version of zChaff is

 bundled in \texttt{native\-solver.\allowbreak tgz}, which you will find on

 Kodkod's web site \cite{kodkod-2009}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{RSat}}: RSat is an efficient solver written in

 \cpp{}. To use RSat, set the environment variable \texttt{RSAT\_HOME} to the

 directory that contains the \texttt{rsat} executable. The \cpp{} sources for

 RSat are available at \url{http://reasoning.cs.ucla.edu/rsat/}. Nitpick has been

 tested with version 2.01.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{BerkMin}}: BerkMin561 is an efficient solver

 written in C. To use BerkMin, set the environment variable

 \texttt{BERKMIN\_HOME} to the directory that contains the \texttt{BerkMin561}

 executable. The BerkMin executables are available at

 \url{http://eigold.tripod.com/BerkMin.html}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{BerkMinAlloy}}: Variant of BerkMin that is

 included with Alloy 4 and calls itself ``sat56'' in its banner text. To use this

 version of BerkMin, set the environment variable

 \texttt{BERKMINALLOY\_HOME} to the directory that contains the \texttt{berkmin}

 executable.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{Jerusat}}: Jerusat 1.3 is an efficient solver

 written in C. To use Jerusat, set the environment variable

 \texttt{JERUSAT\_HOME} to the directory that contains the \texttt{Jerusat1.3}

 executable. The C sources for Jerusat are available at

 \url{http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~ale1/Jerusat1.3.tgz}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{SAT4J}}: SAT4J is a reasonably efficient solver

 written in Java that can be used incrementally. It is bundled with Kodkodi and

 requires no further installation or configuration steps. Do not attempt to

 install the official SAT4J packages, because their API is incompatible with

 Kodkod.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{SAT4JLight}}: Variant of SAT4J that is

 optimized for small problems. It can also be used incrementally.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{HaifaSat}}: HaifaSat 1.0 beta is an

 experimental solver written in \cpp. To use HaifaSat, set the environment

 variable \texttt{HAIFASAT\_\allowbreak HOME} to the directory that contains the

 \texttt{HaifaSat} executable. The \cpp{} sources for HaifaSat are available at

 \url{http://cs.technion.ac.il/~gershman/HaifaSat.htm}.

 \item[$\bullet$] \textbf{\textit{smart}}: If \textit{sat\_solver} is set to

 \textit{smart}, Nitpick selects the first solver among MiniSat,

 PicoSAT, zChaff, RSat, BerkMin, BerkMinAlloy, Jerusat, MiniSatJNI, and zChaffJNI

 that is recognized by Isabelle. If none is found, it falls back on SAT4J, which

 should always be available. If \textit{verbose} (\S\ref{output-format}) is

 enabled, Nitpick displays which SAT solver was chosen.

 \end{enum}

 \fussy

 \opdefault{batch\_size}{int\_or\_smart}{smart}

 Specifies the maximum number of Kodkod problems that should be lumped together

 when invoking Kodkodi. Each problem corresponds to one scope. Lumping problems

 together ensures that Kodkodi is launched less often, but it makes the verbose

 output less readable and is sometimes detrimental to performance. If

 \textit{batch\_size} is set to \textit{smart}, the actual value used is 1 if

 \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}) is set and 64 otherwise.

 \optrue{destroy\_constrs}{dont\_destroy\_constrs}

 Specifies whether formulas involving (co)in\-duc\-tive datatype constructors should

 be rewritten to use (automatically generated) discriminators and destructors.

 This optimization can drastically reduce the size of the Boolean formulas given

 to the SAT solver.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \optrue{specialize}{dont\_specialize}

 Specifies whether functions invoked with static arguments should be specialized.

 This optimization can drastically reduce the search space, especially for

 higher-order functions.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}) and

 \textit{show\_consts} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \optrue{skolemize}{dont\_skolemize}

 Specifies whether the formula should be skolemized. For performance reasons,

 (positive) $\forall$-quanti\-fiers that occur in the scope of a higher-order

 (positive) $\exists$-quanti\-fier are left unchanged.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}) and

 \textit{show\_skolems} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \optrue{star\_linear\_preds}{dont\_star\_linear\_preds}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should use Kodkod's transitive closure operator to

 encode non-well-founded ``linear inductive predicates,'' i.e., inductive

 predicates for which each the predicate occurs in at most one assumption of each

 introduction rule. Using the reflexive transitive closure is in principle

 equivalent to setting \textit{iter} to the cardinality of the predicate's

 domain, but it is usually more efficient.

 {\small See also \textit{wf} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}), \textit{debug}

 (\S\ref{output-format}), and \textit{iter} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}).}

 \optrue{uncurry}{dont\_uncurry}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should uncurry functions. Uncurrying has on its own no

 tangible effect on efficiency, but it creates opportunities for the boxing 

 optimization.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{box} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}), \textit{debug}

 (\S\ref{output-format}), and \textit{format} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \optrue{fast\_descrs}{full\_descrs}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should optimize the definite and indefinite

 description operators (THE and SOME). The optimized versions usually help

 Nitpick generate more counterexamples or at least find them faster, but only the

 unoptimized versions are complete when all types occurring in the formula are

 finite.

 {\small See also \textit{debug} (\S\ref{output-format}).}

 \optrue{peephole\_optim}{no\_peephole\_optim}

 Specifies whether Nitpick should simplify the generated Kodkod formulas using a

 peephole optimizer. These optimizations can make a significant difference.

 Unless you are tracking down a bug in Nitpick or distrust the peephole

 optimizer, you should leave this option enabled.

 \opdefault{sym\_break}{int}{20}

 Specifies an upper bound on the number of relations for which Kodkod generates

 symmetry breaking predicates. According to the Kodkod documentation

 \cite{kodkod-2009-options}, ``in general, the higher this value, the more

 symmetries will be broken, and the faster the formula will be solved. But,

 setting the value too high may have the opposite effect and slow down the

 solving.''

 \opdefault{sharing\_depth}{int}{3}

 Specifies the depth to which Kodkod should check circuits for equivalence during

 the translation to SAT. The default of 3 is the same as in Alloy. The minimum

 allowed depth is 1. Increasing the sharing may result in a smaller SAT problem,

 but can also slow down Kodkod.

 \opfalse{flatten\_props}{dont\_flatten\_props}

 Specifies whether Kodkod should try to eliminate intermediate Boolean variables.

 Although this might sound like a good idea, in practice it can drastically slow

 down Kodkod.

 \opdefault{max\_threads}{int}{0}

 Specifies the maximum number of threads to use in Kodkod. If this option is set

 to 0, Kodkod will compute an appropriate value based on the number of processor

 cores available.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{batch\_size} (\S\ref{optimizations}) and

 \textit{timeout} (\S\ref{timeouts}).}

 \end{enum}

 \subsection{Timeouts}

 \label{timeouts}

 \begin{enum}

 \opdefault{timeout}{time}{$\mathbf{30}$ s}

 Specifies the maximum amount of time that the \textbf{nitpick} command should

 spend looking for a counterexample. Nitpick tries to honor this constraint as

 well as it can but offers no guarantees. For automatic runs,

 \textit{timeout} is ignored; instead, Auto Quickcheck and Auto Nitpick share

 a time slot whose length is specified by the ``Auto Counterexample Time

 Limit'' option in Proof General.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{max\_threads} (\S\ref{optimizations}).}

 \opdefault{tac\_timeout}{time}{$\mathbf{500}$\,ms}

 Specifies the maximum amount of time that the \textit{auto} tactic should use

 when checking a counterexample, and similarly that \textit{lexicographic\_order}

 and \textit{size\_change} should use when checking whether a (co)in\-duc\-tive

 predicate is well-founded. Nitpick tries to honor this constraint as well as it

 can but offers no guarantees.

 \nopagebreak

 {\small See also \textit{wf} (\S\ref{scope-of-search}),

 \textit{check\_potential} (\S\ref{authentication}),

 and \textit{check\_genuine} (\S\ref{authentication}).}

 \end{enum}

 \section{Attribute Reference}

 \label{attribute-reference}

 Nitpick needs to consider the definitions of all constants occurring in a

 formula in order to falsify it. For constants introduced using the

 \textbf{definition} command, the definition is simply the associated

 \textit{\_def} axiom. In contrast, instead of using the internal representation

 of functions synthesized by Isabelle's \textbf{primrec}, \textbf{function}, and

 \textbf{nominal\_primrec} packages, Nitpick relies on the more natural

 equational specification entered by the user.

 Behind the scenes, Isabelle's built-in packages and theories rely on the

 following attributes to affect Nitpick's behavior:

 \begin{itemize}

 \flushitem{\textit{nitpick\_def}}

 \nopagebreak

 This attribute specifies an alternative definition of a constant. The

 alternative definition should be logically equivalent to the constant's actual

 axiomatic definition and should be of the form

 \qquad $c~{?}x_1~\ldots~{?}x_n \,\equiv\, t$,

 where ${?}x_1, \ldots, {?}x_n$ are distinct variables and $c$ does not occur in

 $t$.

 \flushitem{\textit{nitpick\_simp}}

 \nopagebreak

 This attribute specifies the equations that constitute the specification of a

 constant. For functions defined using the \textbf{primrec}, \textbf{function},

 and \textbf{nominal\_\allowbreak primrec} packages, this corresponds to the

 \textit{simps} rules. The equations must be of the form

 \qquad $c~t_1~\ldots\ t_n \,=\, u.$

 \flushitem{\textit{nitpick\_psimp}}

 \nopagebreak

 This attribute specifies the equations that constitute the partial specification

 of a constant. For functions defined using the \textbf{function} package, this

 corresponds to the \textit{psimps} rules. The conditional equations must be of

 the form

 \qquad $\lbrakk P_1;\> \ldots;\> P_m\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, c\ t_1\ \ldots\ t_n \,=\, u$.

 \flushitem{\textit{nitpick\_intro}}

 \nopagebreak

 This attribute specifies the introduction rules of a (co)in\-duc\-tive predicate.

 For predicates defined using the \textbf{inductive} or \textbf{coinductive}

 command, this corresponds to the \textit{intros} rules. The introduction rules

 must be of the form

 \qquad $\lbrakk P_1;\> \ldots;\> P_m;\> M~(c\ t_{11}\ \ldots\ t_{1n});\>

 \ldots;\> M~(c\ t_{k1}\ \ldots\ t_{kn})\rbrakk \,\Longrightarrow\, c\ u_1\

 \ldots\ u_n$,

 where the $P_i$'s are side conditions that do not involve $c$ and $M$ is an

 optional monotonic operator. The order of the assumptions is irrelevant.

 \end{itemize}

 When faced with a constant, Nitpick proceeds as follows:

 \begin{enum}

 \item[1.] If the \textit{nitpick\_simp} set associated with the constant

 is not empty, Nitpick uses these rules as the specification of the constant.

 \item[2.] Otherwise, if the \textit{nitpick\_psimp} set associated with

 the constant is not empty, it uses these rules as the specification of the

 constant.

 \item[3.] Otherwise, it looks up the definition of the constant:

 \begin{enum}

 \item[1.] If the \textit{nitpick\_def} set associated with the constant

 is not empty, it uses the latest rule added to the set as the definition of the

 constant; otherwise it uses the actual definition axiom.

 \item[2.] If the definition is of the form

 \qquad $c~{?}x_1~\ldots~{?}x_m \,\equiv\, \lambda y_1~\ldots~y_n.\; \textit{lfp}~(\lambda f.\; t)$,

 then Nitpick assumes that the definition was made using an inductive package and

 based on the introduction rules marked with \textit{nitpick\_\allowbreak

 ind\_\allowbreak intros} tries to determine whether the definition is

 well-founded.

 \end{enum}

 \end{enum}

 As an illustration, consider the inductive definition

 \prew

 \textbf{inductive}~\textit{odd}~\textbf{where} \\

 ``\textit{odd}~1'' $\,\mid$ \\

 ``\textit{odd}~$n\,\Longrightarrow\, \textit{odd}~(\textit{Suc}~(\textit{Suc}~n))$''

 \postw

 Isabelle automatically attaches the \textit{nitpick\_intro} attribute to

 the above rules. Nitpick then uses the \textit{lfp}-based definition in

 conjunction with these rules. To override this, we can specify an alternative

 definition as follows:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} $\mathit{odd\_def}'$ [\textit{nitpick\_def}]: ``$\textit{odd}~n \,\equiv\, n~\textrm{mod}~2 = 1$''

 \postw

 Nitpick then expands all occurrences of $\mathit{odd}~n$ to $n~\textrm{mod}~2

 = 1$. Alternatively, we can specify an equational specification of the constant:

 \prew

 \textbf{lemma} $\mathit{odd\_simp}'$ [\textit{nitpick\_simp}]: ``$\textit{odd}~n = (n~\textrm{mod}~2 = 1)$''

 \postw

 Such tweaks should be done with great care, because Nitpick will assume that the

 constant is completely defined by its equational specification. For example, if

 you make ``$\textit{odd}~(2 * k + 1)$'' a \textit{nitpick\_simp} rule and neglect to provide rules to handle the $2 * k$ case, Nitpick will define

 $\textit{odd}~n$ arbitrarily for even values of $n$. The \textit{debug}

 (\S\ref{output-format}) option is extremely useful to understand what is going

 on when experimenting with \textit{nitpick\_} attributes.

 \section{Standard ML Interface}

 \label{standard-ml-interface}

 Nitpick provides a rich Standard ML interface used mainly for internal purposes

 and debugging. Among the most interesting functions exported by Nitpick are

 those that let you invoke the tool programmatically and those that let you

 register and unregister custom coinductive datatypes.

 \subsection{Invocation of Nitpick}

 \label{invocation-of-nitpick}

 The \textit{Nitpick} structure offers the following functions for invoking your

 favorite counterexample generator:

 \prew

 $\textbf{val}\,~\textit{pick\_nits\_in\_term} : \\

 \hbox{}\quad\textit{Proof.state} \rightarrow \textit{params} \rightarrow \textit{bool} \rightarrow \textit{term~list} \rightarrow \textit{term} \\

 \hbox{}\quad{\rightarrow}\; \textit{string} * \textit{Proof.state}$ \\

 $\textbf{val}\,~\textit{pick\_nits\_in\_subgoal} : \\

 \hbox{}\quad\textit{Proof.state} \rightarrow \textit{params} \rightarrow \textit{bool} \rightarrow \textit{int} \rightarrow \textit{string} * \textit{Proof.state}$

 \postw

 The return value is a new proof state paired with an outcome string

 (``genuine'', ``likely\_genuine'', ``potential'', ``none'', or ``unknown''). The

 \textit{params} type is a large record that lets you set Nitpick's options. The

 current default options can be retrieved by calling the following function

 defined in the \textit{Nitpick\_Isar} structure:

 \prew

 $\textbf{val}\,~\textit{default\_params} :\,

 \textit{theory} \rightarrow (\textit{string} * \textit{string})~\textit{list} \rightarrow \textit{params}$

 \postw

 The second argument lets you override option values before they are parsed and

 put into a \textit{params} record. Here is an example:

 \prew

 $\textbf{val}\,~\textit{params} = \textit{Nitpick\_Isar.default\_params}~\textit{thy}~[(\textrm{``}\textrm{timeout}\textrm{''},\, \textrm{``}\textrm{none}\textrm{''})]$ \\

 $\textbf{val}\,~(\textit{outcome},\, \textit{state}') = \textit{Nitpick.pick\_nits\_in\_subgoal}~\begin{aligned}[t]

 & \textit{state}~\textit{params}~\textit{false} \\[-2pt]

 & \textit{subgoal}\end{aligned}$

 \postw

 \let\antiq=\textrm

 \subsection{Registration of Coinductive Datatypes}

 \label{registration-of-coinductive-datatypes}

 If you have defined a custom coinductive datatype, you can tell Nitpick about

 it, so that it can use an efficient Kodkod axiomatization similar to the one it

 uses for lazy lists. The interface for registering and unregistering coinductive

 datatypes consists of the following pair of functions defined in the

 \textit{Nitpick} structure:

 \prew

 $\textbf{val}\,~\textit{register\_codatatype} :\,

 \textit{typ} \rightarrow \textit{string} \rightarrow \textit{styp~list} \rightarrow \textit{theory} \rightarrow \textit{theory}$ \\

 $\textbf{val}\,~\textit{unregister\_codatatype} :\,

 \textit{typ} \rightarrow \textit{theory} \rightarrow \textit{theory}$

 \postw

 The type $'a~\textit{llist}$ of lazy lists is already registered; had it

 not been, you could have told Nitpick about it by adding the following line

 to your theory file:

 \prew