This documentation topic is divided into two parts. We first
discuss the practical aspect of how to use the non-linear arithmetic extension
to ACL2, and then the theory behind it. We assume that the reader is familiar
with the material in linear-arithmetic and that on
We begin our discussion of how to use non-linear arithmetic with a simple example. Assume that we wish to prove:
(thm (implies (and (rationalp x) (rationalp y) (rationalp z) (< 0 y) (< x (* y z))) (< (floor x y) z)))
We now proceed with our example session:
(skip-proofs (progn ; Since the truth of this theorem depends on the linear properties ; of floor, we will need the linear lemma: (defthm floor-bounds-1 (implies (and (rationalp x) (rationalp y)) (and (< (+ (/ x y) -1) (floor x y)) (<= (floor x y) (/ x y)))) :rule-classes ((:linear :trigger-terms ((floor x y))))) ; We now disable floor, so that the linear lemma will be used. (in-theory (disable floor)) ; We create five rewrite rules which we will use during non-linear ; arithmetic. The necessity for these is due to one of the differences in ; ACL2's behavior when non-linear arithmetic is turned on. Although ; the conclusions of linear lemmas have always been rewritten before ; they are used, now, when non-linear arithmetic is turned on, the ; conclusions are rewritten under a different theory than under ``normal'' ; rewriting. This theory is also used in other, similar, circumstances ; described below. (defthm |arith (* -1 x)| (equal (* -1 x) (- x))) (defthm |arith (* 1 x)| (equal (* 1 x) (fix x))) (defthm |arith (* x (/ x) y)| (equal (* x (/ x) y) (if (equal (fix x) 0) 0 (fix y)))) (defthm |arith (* y x)| (equal (* y x) (* x y))) (defthm |arith (fix x)| (implies (acl2-numberp x) (equal (fix x) x)))) ) ; End skip-proofs. ; We disable the above rewrite rules from normal use. (in-theory (disable |arith (* -1 x)| |arith (* 1 x)| |arith (* x (/ x) y)| |arith (* y x)| |arith (fix x)|)) ; We create an arithmetic-theory. Note that we must give a quoted ; constant for the theory — none of the normal theory-functions ; are applicable to in-arithmetic-theory. (in-arithmetic-theory '(|arith (* -1 x)| |arith (* 1 x)| |arith (* x (/ x) y)| |arith (* y x)| |arith (fix x)|)) ; We turn non-linear arithmetic on. (set-non-linearp t) ; We can now go ahead and prove our theorem. (thm (implies (and (rationalp x) (rationalp y) (rationalp z) (< 0 y) (< x (* y z))) (< (floor x y) z)))
The above example illustrates the two practical requirements for using non-linear arithmetic in ACL2. First, one must set up an arithmetic-theory. Usually, one would not set up an arithmetic-theory on one's own but would instead load a library book or books which do so. Second, one must turn the non-linear arithmetic extension on. This one must do explicitly — no book can do this for you.
For a brief discussion of why this is so, even though
You can also enable non-linear arithmetic with the hint
(defun nonlinearp-default-hint (stable-under-simplificationp hist pspv) (cond (stable-under-simplificationp (if (not (access rewrite-constant (access prove-spec-var pspv :rewrite-constant) :nonlinearp)) '(:computed-hint-replacement t :nonlinearp t) nil)) ((access rewrite-constant (access prove-spec-var pspv :rewrite-constant) :nonlinearp) (if (not (equal (caar hist) 'SETTLED-DOWN-CLAUSE)) '(:computed-hint-replacement t :nonlinearp nil) nil)) (t nil))) (set-default-hints '((nonlinearp-default-hint stable-under-simplificationp hist pspv)))
This has proven to be a helpful strategy which allows faster proof times.
We now proceed to briefly describe the theory behind the non-linear extension to ACL2. In linear-arithmetic it was stated that, ``[L]inear polynomial inequalities can be combined by cross-multiplication and addition to permit the deduction of a third inequality....'' That is, if
0 < poly1, 0 < poly2,
0 < c*poly1 + d*poly2.
Similarly, given the above,
0 < poly1*poly2.
In the linear arithmetic case, we are taking advantage of the facts that multiplication by a positive rational constant does not change the sign of a polynomial and that the sum of two positive polynomials is itself positive. In the non-linear arithmetic case, we are using the fact that the product of two positive polynomials is itself positive.
For example, suppose we have the three assumptions:
p1: 3*x*y + 7*a < 4 p2: 3 < 2*x or p2': 0 < -3 + 2*x p3: 1 < y or p3': 0 < -1 + y,
and we wish to prove that
p4: 0 <= a,
and looking for a contradiction.
There are no cancellations which can be performed by linear arithmetic in
the above situation. (Recall that two polynomials are canceled against each
other only when they have the same largest unknown.) However,
p5: 0 < 3 + -2*x + -3*y + 2*x*y.
The addition of this polynomial will allow cancellation to continue and, in
this case, we will prove our goal. Thus, just as ACL2 adds two polynomials
together when they have the same largest unknown of opposite signs in order to
create a new ``smaller'' polynomial; so ACL2 multiplies polynomials together
when the product of their largest unknowns is itself the largest unknown of
another polynomial. As the use of
This multiplication of polynomials is the motivation for an arithmetic-theory distinct from than the normal one. Because this may be done so often, and because the individual factors have presumably already been rewritten, it is important that this be done in an efficient way. The use of a small, specialized, theory helps avoid the repeated application of rewrite rules to already stabilized terms.