Limiting the effort expended on relieving hypotheses
Before ACL2 can apply a rule with hypotheses, it must establish that the hypotheses are true. (We ignore the relaxing of this requirement afforded by case-splits and forced hypotheses.) ACL2 typically establishes each hypothesis by backchaining — instantiating the hypothesis and then rewriting it recursively. Here we describe how ACL2 allows the user to limit backchaining. At the end, below, we describe the function backchain-limit.
Each hypothesis of a rewrite, meta, linear, or
type-prescription rule is assigned a backchain-limit when the rule is
stored. By default, this limit is
Moreover, the user may set global backchain-limits that limit the total backchaining depth. See set-backchain-limit. One limit is for the use of rewrite, meta, and linear rules, while the other limit is for so-called ``type-set reasoning'', which uses rules of class type-prescription rules. The two limits operate independently. Below, we discuss the first kind of backchain limits, i.e., for other than type-prescription rules, except as otherwise indicated; but the mechanism for those rules is similar.
Below we lay out the precise sense in which a global backchain-limit
interacts with the backchain-limits of individual rules in order to limit
backchaining. But first we note that when further backchaining is disallowed,
ACL2 can still prove a hypothesis in a given context by using that contextual
information. In fact, type-set reasoning may be used (except that a
weaker version of it is used in the second case above, i.e., where we are
already doing type-set reasoning). Thus, the relieving of hypotheses may be
limited to the use of contextual information (without backchaining, i.e.,
without recursively rewriting hypotheses) by executing
Recall that there are two sorts of backchain limits: those applied to
hypotheses of individual rules, as assigned by their
We illustrate with the following examples.
; We stub out some functions so that we can reason about them. (defstub p0 (x) t) (defstub p1 (x) t) (defstub p2 (x) t) (defstub p3 (x) t) ; Initially, the default-backchain-limit is nil, or infinite. (defaxiom p2-implies-p1-limitless (implies (p2 x) (p1 x))) ; The following rule will have a backchain-limit of 0. (defaxiom p1-implies-p0-limit-0 (implies (p1 x) (p0 x)) :rule-classes ((:rewrite :backchain-limit-lst 0))) ; We have (p2 x) ==> (p1 x) ==> (p0 x). We wish to establish that ; (p2 x) ==> (p0 x). Normally, this would be no problem, but here ; we fail because ACL2 cannot establish (p0 x) by type-set reasoning ; alone. (thm (implies (p2 x) (p0 x))) ; We set the default-backchain-limit (for rewriting) to 1. :set-default-backchain-limit 1 ; The following is more powerful than p1-implies-p0-limit-0 ; because it can use rewrite rules to establish (p1 x). (defaxiom p1-implies-p0-limit-1 (implies (p1 x) (p0 x))) ; This theorem will succeed: (thm (implies (p2 x) (p0 x))) ; We return the default-backchain-limit to its initial value. :set-default-backchain-limit nil ; Here is our last axiom. (defaxiom p3-implies-p2-limitless (implies (p3 x) (p2 x))) ; We now have (p3 x) ==> (p2 x) ==> (p1 x) ==> (p0 x). However the ; rule p1-implies-p0-limit-1 has a backchain-limit of 1; hence we ; are not allowed to backchain far enough back to use ; p3-implies-p2-limitless. We therefore lose. (defthm will-fail (implies (p3 x) (p0 x)))
Finally, we remark that to see the current global backchain-limits, issue the following commands.
(backchain-limit wrld :ts) ; backchain limit for type-set reasoning (backchain-limit wrld :rewrite) ; backchain limit for rewriting