Similar to constructor
, but does not reorder goals.
try_for n { tac }
executes tac
for n
ticks, otherwise uses sorry
to close the goal.
Never fails. Useful for debugging.
Multiple subst
. substs x y z
is the same as subst x, subst y, subst z
.
Unfold coercion-related definitions
Unfold has_well_founded.r
, sizeof
and other such definitions.
Unfold auxiliary definitions associated with the current declaration.
For debugging only. This tactic checks the current state for any missing dropped goals and restores them. Useful when there are no goals to solve but "result contains meta-variables".
Like try { tac }
, but in the case of failure it continues
from the failure state instead of reverting to the original state.
work_on_goal n { tac }
creates a block scope for the n
-goal (indexed from zero),
and does not require that the goal be solved at the end
(any remaining subgoals are inserted back into the list of goals).
Typically usage might look like:
intros,
simp,
apply lemma_1,
work_on_goal 2
{ dsimp,
simp },
refl
See also id { tac }
, which is equivalent to work_on_goal 0 { tac }
.
swap n
will move the n
th goal to the front.
swap
defaults to swap 2
, and so interchanges the first and second goals.
See also tactic.interactive.rotate
, which moves the first n
goals to the back.
rotate
moves the first goal to the back. rotate n
will do this n
times.
See also tactic.interactive.swap
, which moves the n
th goal to the front.
Clear all hypotheses starting with _
, like _match
and _let_match
.
Acts like have
, but removes a hypothesis with the same name as
this one. For example if the state is h : p ⊢ goal
and f : p → q
,
then after replace h := f h
the goal will be h : q ⊢ goal
,
where have h := f h
would result in the state h : p, h : q ⊢ goal
.
This can be used to simulate the specialize
and apply at
tactics
of Coq.
Make every proposition in the context decidable.
Like generalize
but also considers assumptions
specified by the user. The user can also specify to
omit the goal.
Remove identity functions from a term. These are normally
automatically generated with terms like show t, from p
or
(p : t)
which translate to some variant on @id t p
in
order to retain the type.
refine_struct { .. }
acts like refine
but works only with structure instance
literals. It creates a goal for each missing field and tags it with the name of the
field so that have_field
can be used to generically refer to the field currently
being refined.
As an example, we can use refine_struct
to automate the construction of semigroup
instances:
refine_struct ( { .. } : semigroup α ),
-- case semigroup, mul
-- α : Type u,
-- ⊢ α → α → α
-- case semigroup, mul_assoc
-- α : Type u,
-- ⊢ ∀ (a b c : α), a * b * c = a * (b * c)
have_field
, used after refine_struct _
, poses field
as a local constant
with the type of the field of the current goal:
refine_struct ({ .. } : semigroup α),
{ have_field, ... },
{ have_field, ... },
behaves like
refine_struct ({ .. } : semigroup α),
{ have field := @semigroup.mul, ... },
{ have field := @semigroup.mul_assoc, ... },
guard_hyp' h : t
fails if the hypothesis h
does not have type t
.
We use this tactic for writing tests.
Fixes guard_hyp
by instantiating meta variables
match_hyp h : t
fails if the hypothesis h
does not match the type t
(which may be a pattern).
We use this tactic for writing tests.
guard_expr_strict t := e
fails if the expr t
is not equal to e
. By contrast
to guard_expr
, this tests strict (syntactic) equality.
We use this tactic for writing tests.
guard_target_strict t
fails if the target of the main goal is not syntactically t
.
We use this tactic for writing tests.
guard_hyp_strict h : t
fails if the hypothesis h
does not have type syntactically equal
to t
.
We use this tactic for writing tests.
Tests that there are n
hypotheses in the current context.
Test that t
is the tag of the main goal.
guard_proof_term { t } e
applies tactic t
and tests whether the resulting proof term
unifies with p
.
success_if_fail_with_msg { tac } msg
succeeds if the interactive tactic tac
fails with
error message msg
(for test writing purposes).
Get the field of the current goal.
have_field
, used after refine_struct _
poses field
as a local constant
with the type of the field of the current goal:
refine_struct ({ .. } : semigroup α),
{ have_field, ... },
{ have_field, ... },
behaves like
refine_struct ({ .. } : semigroup α),
{ have field := @semigroup.mul, ... },
{ have field := @semigroup.mul_assoc, ... },
apply_field
functions as have_field, apply field, clear field
apply_rules hs n
applies the list of lemmas hs
and assumption
on the
first goal and the resulting subgoals, iteratively, at most n
times.
n
is optional, equal to 50 by default.
You can pass an apply_cfg
option argument as apply_rules hs n opt
.
(A typical usage would be with apply_rules hs n { md := reducible })
,
which asks apply_rules
to not unfold semireducible
definitions (i.e. most)
when checking if a lemma matches the goal.)
hs
can contain user attributes: in this case all theorems with this
attribute are added to the list of rules.
For instance:
@[user_attribute]
meta def mono_rules : user_attribute :=
{ name := `mono_rules,
descr := "lemmas usable to prove monotonicity" }
attribute [mono_rules] add_le_add mul_le_mul_of_nonneg_right
lemma my_test {a b c d e : real} (h1 : a ≤ b) (h2 : c ≤ d) (h3 : 0 ≤ e) :
a + c * e + a + c + 0 ≤ b + d * e + b + d + e :=
-- any of the following lines solve the goal:
add_le_add (add_le_add (add_le_add (add_le_add h1 (mul_le_mul_of_nonneg_right h2 h3)) h1 ) h2) h3
by apply_rules [add_le_add, mul_le_mul_of_nonneg_right]
by apply_rules [mono_rules]
by apply_rules mono_rules
```
h_generalize Hx : e == x
matches on cast _ e
in the goal and replaces it with
x
. It also adds Hx : e == x
as an assumption. If cast _ e
appears multiple
times (not necessarily with the same proof), they are all replaced by x
. cast
eq.mp
, eq.mpr
, eq.subst
, eq.substr
, eq.rec
and eq.rec_on
are all treated
as casts.
h_generalize Hx : e == x with h
adds hypothesisα = β
withe : α, x : β
;h_generalize Hx : e == x with _
chooses automatically chooses the name of assumptionα = β
;h_generalize! Hx : e == x
revertsHx
;- when
Hx
is omitted, assumptionHx : e == x
is not added.
Tests whether t
is definitionally equal to p
. The difference with guard_expr_eq
is that
this uses definitional equality instead of alpha-equivalence.
guard_target' t
fails if the target of the main goal is not definitionally equal to t
.
We use this tactic for writing tests.
The difference with guard_target
is that this uses definitional equality instead of
alpha-equivalence.
a weaker version of trivial
that tries to solve the goal by reflexivity or by reducing it to true,
unfolding only reducible
constants.
Similar to existsi
. use x
will instantiate the first term of an ∃
or Σ
goal with x
. It
will then try to close the new goal using triv
, or try to simplify it by applying exists_prop
.
Unlike existsi
, x
is elaborated with respect to the expected type.
use
will alternatively take a list of terms [x0, ..., xn]
.
use
will work with constructors of arbitrary inductive types.
Examples:
example (α : Type) : ∃ S : set α, S = S :=
by use ∅
example : ∃ x : ℤ, x = x :=
by use 42
example : ∃ n > 0, n = n :=
begin
use 1,
-- goal is now 1 > 0 ∧ 1 = 1, whereas it would be ∃ (H : 1 > 0), 1 = 1 after existsi 1.
exact ⟨zero_lt_one, rfl⟩,
end
example : ∃ a b c : ℤ, a + b + c = 6 :=
by use [1, 2, 3]
example : ∃ p : ℤ × ℤ, p.1 = 1 :=
by use ⟨1, 42⟩
example : Σ x y : ℤ, (ℤ × ℤ) × ℤ :=
by use [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
inductive foo
| mk : ℕ → bool × ℕ → ℕ → foo
example : foo :=
by use [100, tt, 4, 3]
```
clear_aux_decl
clears every aux_decl
in the local context for the current goal.
This includes the induction hypothesis when using the equation compiler and
_let_match
and _fun_match
.
It is useful when using a tactic such as finish
, simp *
or subst
that may use these
auxiliary declarations, and produce an error saying the recursion is not well founded.
example (n m : ℕ) (h₁ : n = m) (h₂ : ∃ a : ℕ, a = n ∧ a = m) : 2 * m = 2 * n :=
let ⟨a, ha⟩ := h₂ in
begin
clear_aux_decl, -- subst will fail without this line
subst h₁
end
example (x y : ℕ) (h₁ : ∃ n : ℕ, n * 1 = 2) (h₂ : 1 + 1 = 2 → x * 1 = y) : x = y :=
let ⟨n, hn⟩ := h₁ in
begin
clear_aux_decl, -- finish produces an error without this line
finish
end
```
The logic of change x with y at l
fails when there are dependencies.
change'
mimics the behavior of change
, except in the case of change x with y at l
.
In this case, it will correctly replace occurences of x
with y
at all possible hypotheses
in l
. As long as x
and y
are defeq, it should never fail.
set a := t with h
is a variant of let a := t
. It adds the hypothesis h : a = t
to
the local context and replaces t
with a
everywhere it can.
set a := t with ←h
will add h : t = a
instead.
set! a := t with h
does not do any replacing.
example (x : ℕ) (h : x = 3) : x + x + x = 9 :=
begin
set y := x with ←h_xy,
/-
x : ℕ,
y : ℕ := x,
h_xy : x = y,
h : y = 3
⊢ y + y + y = 9
-/
end
clear_except h₀ h₁
deletes all the assumptions it can except for h₀
and h₁
.
Format the current goal as a stand-alone example. Useful for testing tactics or creating minimal working examples.
extract_goal
: formats the statement as anexample
declarationextract_goal my_decl
: formats the statement as alemma
ordef
declaration calledmy_decl
extract_goal with i j k:
only use local constantsi
,j
,k
in the declaration
Examples:
example (i j k : ℕ) (h₀ : i ≤ j) (h₁ : j ≤ k) : i ≤ k :=
begin
extract_goal,
-- prints:
-- example (i j k : ℕ) (h₀ : i ≤ j) (h₁ : j ≤ k) : i ≤ k :=
-- begin
-- admit,
-- end
extract_goal my_lemma
-- prints:
-- lemma my_lemma (i j k : ℕ) (h₀ : i ≤ j) (h₁ : j ≤ k) : i ≤ k :=
-- begin
-- admit,
-- end
end
example {i j k x y z w p q r m n : ℕ} (h₀ : i ≤ j) (h₁ : j ≤ k) (h₁ : k ≤ p) (h₁ : p ≤ q) : i ≤ k :=
begin
extract_goal my_lemma,
-- prints:
-- lemma my_lemma {i j k x y z w p q r m n : ℕ}
-- (h₀ : i ≤ j)
-- (h₁ : j ≤ k)
-- (h₁ : k ≤ p)
-- (h₁ : p ≤ q) :
-- i ≤ k :=
-- begin
-- admit,
-- end
extract_goal my_lemma with i j k
-- prints:
-- lemma my_lemma {p i j k : ℕ}
-- (h₀ : i ≤ j)
-- (h₁ : j ≤ k)
-- (h₁ : k ≤ p) :
-- i ≤ k :=
-- begin
-- admit,
-- end
end
example : true :=
begin
let n := 0,
have m : ℕ, admit,
have k : fin n, admit,
have : n + m + k.1 = 0, extract_goal,
-- prints:
-- example (m : ℕ) : let n : ℕ := 0 in ∀ (k : fin n), n + m + k.val = 0 :=
-- begin
-- intros n k,
-- admit,
-- end
end
```
inhabit α
tries to derive a nonempty α
instance and then upgrades this
to an inhabited α
instance.
If the target is a Prop
, this is done constructively;
otherwise, it uses classical.choice
.
revert_deps n₁ n₂ ...
reverts all the hypotheses that depend on one of n₁, n₂, ...
It does not revert n₁, n₂, ...
themselves (unless they depend on another nᵢ
).
revert_after n
reverts all the hypotheses after n
.
Reverts all local constants on which the target depends (recursively).
clear_value n₁ n₂ ...
clears the bodies of the local definitions n₁, n₂ ...
, changing them
into regular hypotheses. A hypothesis n : α := t
is changed to n : α
.
generalize' : e = x
replaces all occurrences of e
in the target with a new hypothesis x
of
the same type.
generalize' h : e = x
in addition registers the hypothesis h : e = x
.
generalize'
is similar to generalize
. The difference is that generalize' : e = x
also
succeeds when e
does not occur in the goal. It is similar to set
, but the resulting hypothesis
x
is not a local definition.
If the expression q
is a local variable with type x = t
or t = x
, where x
is a local
constant, tactic.interactive.subst' q
substitutes x
by t
everywhere in the main goal and
then clears q
.
If q
is another local variable, then we find a local constant with type q = t
or t = q
and
substitute t
for q
.
Like tactic.interactive.subst
, but fails with a nicer error message if the substituted variable is
a local definition. It is trickier to fix this in core, since tactic.is_local_def
is in mathlib.