DEFUN-SK-EXAMPLE

Major Section:  DEFUN-SK

For a more through, systematic beginner's introduction to quantification in ACL2, see quantifier-tutorial.

The following example illustrates how to do proofs about functions defined with defun-sk. The events below can be put into a certifiable book (see books). The example is contrived and rather silly, in that it shows how to prove that a quantified notion implies itself, where the antecedent and conclusion are defined with different defun-sk events. But it illustrates the formulas that are generated by defun-sk, and how to use them. Thanks to Julien Schmaltz for presenting this example as a challenge.

(in-package "ACL2")

(encapsulate
 (((p *) => *)
  ((expr *) => *))

 (local (defun p (x) x))
 (local (defun expr (x) x)))

(defun-sk forall-expr1 (x)
  (forall (y) (implies (p x) (expr y))))

(defun-sk forall-expr2 (x)
  (forall (y) (implies (p x) (expr y)))))

; We want to prove the theorem my-theorem below.  What axioms are there that
; can help us?  If you submit the command

; :pcb! forall-expr1

; then you will see the following two key events.  (They are completely
; analogous of course for FORALL-EXPR2.)

;   (DEFUN FORALL-EXPR1 (X)
;     (LET ((Y (FORALL-EXPR1-WITNESS X)))
;          (IMPLIES (P X) (EXPR Y))))
;
;   (DEFTHM FORALL-EXPR1-NECC
;     (IMPLIES (NOT (IMPLIES (P X) (EXPR Y)))
;              (NOT (FORALL-EXPR1 X)))
;     :HINTS
;     (("Goal" :USE FORALL-EXPR1-WITNESS)))

; We see that the latter has value when FORALL-EXPR1 occurs negated in a
; conclusion, or (therefore) positively in a hypothesis.  A good rule to
; remember is that the former has value in the opposite circumstance: negated
; in a hypothesis or positively in a conclusion.

; In our theorem, FORALL-EXPR2 occurs positively in the conclusion, so its
; definition should be of use.  We therefore leave its definition enabled,
; and disable the definition of FORALL-EXPR1.

;   (thm
;     (implies (and (p x) (forall-expr1 x))
;              (forall-expr2 x))
;     :hints (("Goal" :in-theory (disable forall-expr1))))
;
;   ; which yields this unproved subgoal:
;
;   (IMPLIES (AND (P X) (FORALL-EXPR1 X))
;            (EXPR (FORALL-EXPR2-WITNESS X)))

; Now we can see how to use FORALL-EXPR1-NECC to complete the proof, by
; binding y to (FORALL-EXPR2-WITNESS X).

; We use defthmd below so that the following doesn't interfere with the
; second proof, in my-theorem-again that follows.
(defthmd my-theorem
  (implies (and (p x) (forall-expr1 x))
           (forall-expr2 x))
  :hints (("Goal"
           :use ((:instance forall-expr1-necc
                            (x x)
                            (y (forall-expr2-witness x)))))))

; The following illustrates a more advanced technique to consider in such
; cases.  If we disable forall-expr1, then we can similarly succeed by having
; FORALL-EXPR1-NECC applied as a :rewrite rule, with an appropriate hint in how
; to instantiate its free variable.  See :doc hints.

(defthm my-theorem-again
  (implies (and (P x) (forall-expr1 x))
           (forall-expr2 x))
  :hints (("Goal"
           :in-theory (disable forall-expr1)
           :restrict ((forall-expr1-necc
                       ((y (forall-expr2-witness x))))))))