Major Section: RULE-CLASSES

As described elsewhere (see rule-classes), ACL2 rules are treated as
implications for which there are zero or more hypotheses `hj`

to prove. In
particular, rules of class `:`

`rewrite`

may look like this:

(implies (and h1 ... hn) (fn lhs rhs))Variables of

`hi`

are said to occur `:rewrite`

rule if they do not occur in `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 `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.)In general, the *free variables* of rules are those variables occurring in
their hypotheses (not `let`

/`let*`

/`lambda`

-bound) that are not
bound when the rule is applied. For rules of class `:`

`linear`

and
`:`

`forward-chaining`

, variables are bound by a trigger term.
(See rule-classes for a discussion of the `:trigger-terms`

field). For
rules of class `:`

`type-prescription`

, variables are bound by the
`:typed-term`

field.

Let us discuss the method for relieving hypotheses of rewrite rules with free variables. Similar considerations apply to linear and forward-chaining rules, and type-prescription rules.

See free-variables-examples for more examples of how this all works, including illustration of how the user can exercise some control over it. In particular, see free-variables-examples-rewrite for an explanation of output from the break-rewrite facility in the presence of rewriting failures involving free variables, as well as an example exploring ``binding hypotheses'' as described below.

Note that the `:match-free`

mechanism discussed below does not apply to
type-prescription rules. See free-variables-type-prescription for a
discussion of how to control free-variable matchng for type-prescription
rules.

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

### FREE-VARIABLES-TYPE-PRESCRIPTION -- matching for free variable in type-prescription rules

We begin with an example. Does the proof of the `thm`

below succeed?

(defstub p2 (x y) t) (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)))Consider what happens when the proof of the

`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.

ACL2 uses the following sequence of steps to relieve a hypothesis with free
variables, except that steps (1) and (3) are skipped for
`:forward-chaining`

rules and step (3) is skipped for
`:type-prescription`

rules. First, if the hypothesis is of the form
`(force hyp0)`

or `(case-split hyp0)`

, then replace it with `hyp0`

.

(1) Suppose the hypothesis has the form

`(equiv var term)`

where`var`

is free and no variable of`term`

is free, and either`equiv`

is`equal`

or else`equiv`

is a known equivalence relation and`term`

is a call of`double-rewrite`

. We call this a ``binding hypothesis.'' 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 original 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`

'' (the default), respectively.

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'.*

As noted above, the following discussion applies only to rewrite, linear, and forward-chaining rules. See free-variables-type-prescription for a discussion of analogous considerations for type-prescription rules.

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.