Major Section: MISCELLANEOUS

Occasionally the ACL2 theorem prover reports that the current goal simplifies to itself or to a set including itself. Such simplifications are said to be ``specious'' and are ignored in the sense that the theorem prover acts as though no simplification were possible and tries the next available proof technique. Specious simplifications are almost always caused by forcing.

The simplification of a formula proceeds primarily by the local
application of `:`

`rewrite`

, `:`

`type-prescription`

, and other rules to its
various subterms. If no rewrite rules apply, the formula cannot be
simplified and is passed to the next ACL2 proof technique, which is
generally the elimination of destructors. The experienced ACL2 user
pays special attention to such ``maximally simplified'' formulas;
the presence of unexpected terms in them indicates the need for
additional rules or the presence of some conflict that prevents
existing rules from working harmoniously together.

However, consider the following interesting possibility: local
rewrite rules apply but, when applied, reproduce the goal as one of
its own subgoals. How can rewrite rules apply and reproduce the
goal? Of course, one way is for one rule application to undo the
effect of another, as when commutativity is applied twice in
succession to the same term. Another kind of example is when two rules
conflict and undermine each other. For example, under suitable
hypotheses, `(length x)`

might be rewritten to `(+ 1 (length (cdr x)))`

by the `:`

`definition`

of `length`

and then a `:`

`rewrite`

rule might be used
to ``fold'' that back to `(length x)`

. Generally speaking the
presence of such ``looping'' rewrite rules causes ACL2's simplifier
either to stop gracefully because of heuristics such as that
described in the documentation for `loop-stopper`

or to cause a
stack overflow because of indefinite recursion.

A more insidious kind of loop can be imagined: two rewrites in different parts of the formula undo each other's effects ``at a distance,'' that is, without ever being applied to one another's output. For example, perhaps the first hypothesis of the formula is simplified to the second, but then the second is simplified to the first, so that the end result is a formula propositionally equivalent to the original one but with the two hypotheses commuted. This is thought to be impossible unless forcing or case-splitting occurs, but if those features are exploited (see force and see case-split) it can be made to happen relatively easily.

Here is a simple example. Declare `foo`

to be a function of one
argument returning one result:

(defstub p1 (x) t)Prove the following silly rule:

(defthm bad (implies (case-split (p1 x)) (p1 x)))Now suppose we try the following.

(thm (p1 x))The rewrite rule

`bad`

will rewrite `(p1 x)`

to `t`

, but it will
be unable to prove the hypothesis `(case-split (p1 x))`

. As a result, the
prover will spawn a new goal, to prove `(p1 x)`

. However, since this new
goal is the same as the original goal, ACL2 will recognize the simplification
as In other words, despite the rewriting, no progress was made! In more common cases, the original goal may simplify to a set of subgoals, one of which includes the original goal.

If ACL2 were to adopt the new set of subgoals, it would loop indefinitely. Therefore, it checks whether the input goal is a member of the output subgoals. If so, it announces that the simplification is ``specious'' and pretends that no simplification occurred.

``Maximally simplified'' formulas that produce specious simplifications are maximally simplified in a very technical sense: were ACL2 to apply every applicable rule to them, no progress would be made. Since ACL2 can only apply every applicable rule, it cannot make further progress with the formula. But the informed user can perhaps identify some rule that should not be applied and make it inapplicable by disabling it, allowing the simplifier to apply all the others and thus make progress.

When specious simplifications are a problem it might be helpful to disable all forcing (including case-splits) and resubmit the formula to observe whether forcing is involved in the loop or not. See force. The commands

ACL2 !>:disable-forcing and ACL2 !>:enable-forcingdisable and enable the pragmatic effects of both

`force`

and `case-split`

. If the loop is broken when forcing is
disabled, then it is very likely some forced hypothesis of
some rule is ``undoing'' a prior simplification. The most common
cause of this is when we force a hypothesis that is actually
false but whose falsity is somehow temporarily hidden (more below).
To find the offending rule, compare the specious simplification with
its non-specious counterpart and look for rules that were speciously
applied that are not applied in the non-specious case. Most likely
you will find at least one such rule and it will have a `force`

d
hypothesis. By disabling that rule, at least for the subgoal in
question, you may allow the simplifier to make progress on the
subgoal.