Major Section: RULE-CLASSES

As described elsewhere, ACL2 rewrite and linear rules are treated
as implications for which there are zero or more hypotheses `hj`

to prove:

(implies (and h1 ... hn) (fn lhs rhs))Also see rewrite and see linear. Variables of

`hj`

are said to occur
`lhs`

or in any `hj`

with `j<i`

. (To be precise, here we are only discussing those variables
that are not in the scope of a `let`

/`let*`

/`lambda`

that binds
them.) We also refer to these as the
(Variables of `rhs`

may be considered free if they do not occur in `lhs`

or in any `hj`

. But we do not consider those in this discussion.)

Let us discuss the method for relieving hypotheses of rewrite and
linear rules with free variables. Similar considerations apply to
type-prescription and forward-chaining rules, but we do not discuss
those further here other than to say that only one binding is tried for the
latter two classes, much as described in the discussion about `:once`

below.

See free-variables-examples for examples of how this all works, including illustration of how the user can exercise some control over it.

### FREE-VARIABLES-EXAMPLES -- examples pertaining free variables in rules

`thm`

below succeed?
(defstub p2 (x y) t)Consider what happens when the proof of the(defaxiom p2-trans (implies (and (p2 x y) (p2 y z)) (equal (p2 x z) t)) :rule-classes ((:rewrite :match-free :all)))

(thm (implies (and (p2 a c) (p2 a b) (p2 c d)) (p2 a d)))

`thm`

is attempted. The ACL2
rewriter attempts to apply rule `p2-trans`

to the conclusion, `(p2 a d)`

.
So, it binds variables `x`

and `z`

from the left-hand side of the
conclusion of `p2-trans`

to terms `a`

and `d`

, respectively, and then
attempts to relieve the hypotheses of `p2-trans`

. The first hypothesis of
`p2-trans`

, `(p2 x y)`

, is considered first. Variable `y`

is free in
that hypothesis, i.e., it has not yet been bound. Since `x`

is bound to
`a`

, the rewriter looks through the context for a binding of `y`

such
that `(p2 a y)`

is true, and it so happens that it first finds the term
`(p2 a b)`

, thus binding `y`

to `b`

. Now it goes on to the next
hypothesis, `(p2 y z)`

. At this point `y`

and `z`

have already been
bound to `b`

and `d`

; but `(p2 b d)`

cannot be proved.
So, in order for the proof of the `thm`

to succeed, the rewriter needs to
backtrack and look for another way to instantiate the first hypothesis of
`p2-trans`

. Because `:match-free :all`

has been specified, backtracking
does take place. This time `y`

is bound to `c`

, and the subsequent
instantiated hypothesis becomes `(p2 c d)`

, which is true. The application
of rule `(p2-trans)`

succeeds and the theorem is proved.

If instead `:match-free :all`

had been replaced by `:match-free :once`

in
rule `p2-trans`

, then backtracking would not occur, and the proof of the
`thm`

would fail.

Next we describe in detail the steps used by the rewriter in dealing with free variables.

The ACL2 rewriter uses the following sequence of steps to relieve hypotheses
with free variables. (1) If the hypothesis has the form `(equal var term)`

where `var`

is free and no variable of `term`

is free, then bind `var`

to the result of rewriting `term`

in the current context. (2) Look for a
binding of the free variables of the hypothesis so that the corresponding
instance of the hypothesis is known to be true in the current context. (3)
Search all `enable`

d, hypothesis-free rewrite rules of the form
`(equiv lhs rhs)`

, where `lhs`

has no variables (other than those bound
by `let`

, `let*`

, or `lambda`

), `rhs`

is known to be true in the
current context, and `equiv`

is typically `equal`

but can be any
equivalence relation appropriate for the current context (see congruence);
then attempt to bind the free variables so that the instantiated hypothesis
is `lhs`

. If all attempts fail and the hypothesis is a call of `force`

or `case-split`

, where forcing is enabled (see force) then the
hypothesis is relieved, but in the split-off goals, all free variables are
bound to unusual names that call attention to this odd situation.

When a rewrite or linear rule has free variables in the hypotheses,
the user generally needs to specify whether to consider only the first
instance found in steps (2) and (3) above, or instead to consider them all.
Below we discuss how to specify these two options as ```:once`

'' or
```:all`

'', respectively. If such a rule is encountered during
`include-book`

or `certify-book`

then a default of `:all`

is
presumed. In any other context, an error will occur if neither `:once`

nor
`:all`

has been specified.

Is it better to specify `:once`

or `:all`

? We believe that `:all`

is
generally the better choice because of its greater power, provided the user
does not introduce a large number of rules with free variables, which has
been known to slow down the prover due to combinatorial explosion in the
search (Steps (2) and (3) above).

Either way, it is good practice to put the ``more substantial'' hypotheses
first, so that the most likely bindings of free variables will be found first
(in the case of `:all`

) or found at all (in the case of `:once`

). For
example, a rewrite rule like

(implies (and (p1 x y) (p2 x y)) (equal (bar x) (bar-prime x)))may never succeed if

`p1`

is nonrecursive and enabled, since we may well
not find calls of `p1`

in the current context. If however `p2`

is
disabled or recursive, then the above rule may apply if the two hypotheses
are switched. For in that case, we can hope for a match of `(p2 x y)`

in
the current context that therefore binds `x`

and `y`

; then the rewriter's
full power may be brought to bear to prove `(p1 x y)`

for that `x`

and
`y`

.Moreover, the ordering of hypotheses can affect the efficiency of the rewriter. For example, the rule

(implies (and (rationalp y) (foo x y)) (equal (bar x) (bar-prime x)))may well be sub-optimal. Presumably the intention is to rewrite

`(bar x)`

to `(bar-prime x)`

in a context where `(foo x y)`

is explicitly known to
be true for some rational number `y`

. But `y`

will be bound first to the
first term found in the current context that is known to represent a rational
number. If the 100th such `y`

that is found is the first one for which
`(foo x y)`

is known to be true, then wasted work will have been done on
behalf of the first 99 such terms `y`

-- unless `:once`

has been
specified, in which case the rule will simply fail after the first binding of
`y`

for which `(rationalp y)`

is known to be true. Thus, a better form
of the above rule is almost certainly the following.
(implies (and (foo x y) (rationalp y)) (equal (bar x) (bar-prime x)))

*Specifying `once' or `all'.* One method for specifying `:once`

or
`:all`

for free-variable matching is to provide the `:match-free`

field of
the `:rule-classes`

of the rule, for example, `(:rewrite :match-free :all)`

.
See rule-classes. However, there are global events that can be used
to specify `:once`

or `:all`

; see set-match-free-default and
see add-match-free-override. Here are some examples.

(set-match-free-default :once) ; future rules without a :match-free field ; are stored as :match-free :once (but this ; behavior is local to a book) (add-match-free-override :once t) ; existing rules are treated as ; :match-free :once regardless of their ; original :match-free fields (add-match-free-override :once (:rewrite foo) (:rewrite bar . 2)) ; the two indicated rules are treated as ; :match-free :once regardless of their ; original :match-free fields

*Some history.* Before Version 2.7 the ACL2 rewriter performed Step (2)
above first. More significantly, it always acted as though `:once`

had
been specified. That is, if Step (2) did not apply, then the rewriter took
the first binding it found using either Steps (1) or (3), in that order, and
proceeded to relieve the remaining hypotheses without trying any other
bindings of the free variables of that hypothesis.

*Interaction with the break-rewrite utility.* You may find that the
break-rewrite utility (see break-rewrite) gives surprising error messages
such as the following when a hypothesis has free variables.

:HYP 1 contains a free variable that we could not bind appropriately. See :DOC free-variables.What may be surprising is that the hypothesis being ``blamed'' (in this case, 1) is not the one that you imagine is failing. Consider the following example.

(defstub p (x) t)(defaxiom p-closed (implies (and (p y) (< x y)) (p x)) :rule-classes ((:rewrite :match-free :all)))

:brr t

:monitor (:rewrite p-closed) t

Below is an ACL2 transcript illustrating this issue. In that proof attempt,
ACL2 does successfully bind the free variable `y`

of rule `p-closed`

to
`a`

. However, it is then unable to relieve the second hypothesis of
`p-closed`

, namely `(< x y)`

, where `x`

is bound to `a`

and `y`

is
bound to `(* a a)`

. The rewriter then backtracks to look for new potential
bindings of `y`

besides `a`

, and is unable to find any. So it blames the
failure on the first hypothesis rather than on the second. (Even if
`:match-free :once`

had been specified, the result would be the same. More
information may be provided in future releases, especially if users express a
need for improvement.)

ACL2 !>(thm (implies (and (integerp a) (< 1 a) (p (* a a))) (p a)))Incidentally, if one proves the rule....

(1 Breaking (:REWRITE P-CLOSED) on (P A): 1 ACL2 >:eval 1x (:REWRITE P-CLOSED) failed because :HYP 1 contains a free variable that we could not bind appropriately. See :DOC free-variables. 1 ACL2 >

(defthm helper (implies (and (integerp a) (< 1 a)) (< a (* a a))))then the above theorem can be proved by ACL2.