Top Documentation Books Boolean-reasoning Debugging Projects Std Proof-automation Macro-libraries ACL2 Theories Rule-classes Proof-builder Recursion-and-induction Hons-and-memoization Events Parallelism History Programming Real Start-here Gentle-introduction-to-ACL2-programming ACL2-tutorial Introduction-to-the-theorem-prover Pages Written Especially for the Tours A Tiny Warning Sign About the Prompt ACL2 Symbols Common Lisp About Types The Event Summary An Example of ACL2 in Use The Tours Corroborating Models The Proof of the Associativity of App Guards in ACL2 Numbers in ACL2 About the Admission of Recursive Definitions Free Variables in Top-Level Input Common Lisp as a Modeling Language ACL2 as an Interactive Theorem Prover (cont) A Flying Tour of ACL2 Analyzing Common Lisp Models A Walking Tour of ACL2 The Theorem that App is Associative The End of the Walking Tour Proving Theorems about Models Functions for Manipulating these Objects About the ACL2 Home Page ACL2 Conses or Ordered Pairs The Associativity of App Models of Computer Hardware and Software How To Find Out about ACL2 Functions (cont) A Sketch of How the Rewriter Works ACL2 System Architecture Running Models ACL2 is an Untyped Language How To Find Out about ACL2 Functions How Long Does It Take to Become an Effective User(Q) The Admission of App Guiding the ACL2 Theorem Prover What Is ACL2(Q) Conversion An Example Common Lisp Function Definition ACL2 Characters You Must Think about the Use of a Formula as a Rule The WARNING about the Trivial Consequence Guessing the Type of a Newly Admitted Function ACL2 Strings What is a Mathematical Logic(Q) Revisiting the Admission of App What is a Mechanical Theorem Prover(Q) About Models What is Required of the User(Q) Hey Wait! Is ACL2 Typed or Untyped(Q) The Falling Body Model Rewrite Rules are Generated from DEFTHM Events A Typical State The Time Taken to do the Associativity of App Proof The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 1) The Rules used in the Associativity of App Proof Subsumption of Induction Candidates in App Example Other Requirements Models in Engineering Symbolic Execution of Models Suggested Inductions in the Associativity of App Example Overview of the Proof of a Trivial Consequence Evaluating App on Sample Input The Induction Step in the App Example Modeling in ACL2 The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 9) The Induction Scheme Selected for the App Example The First Application of the Associativity Rule Overview of the Expansion of ENDP in the Induction Step Flawed Induction Candidates in App Example ACL2 as an Interactive Theorem Prover Using the Associativity of App to Prove a Trivial Consequence The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 8) The Instantiation of the Induction Scheme The Final Simplification in the Base Case (Step 0) Overview of the Simplification of the Induction Step to T Overview of the Simplification of the Induction Conclusion On the Naming of Subgoals Nontautological Subgoals What is a Mechanical Theorem Prover(Q) (cont) The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 12) The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 10) The End of the Flying Tour The Base Case in the App Example The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 11) The Final Simplification in the Base Case (Step 3) The Expansion of ENDP in the Induction Step (Step 1) The Expansion of ENDP in the Induction Step (Step 0) The End of the Proof of the Associativity of App Overview of the Simplification of the Base Case to T The Summary of the Proof of the Trivial Consequence The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 7) The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 6) The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 5) The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 4) The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 2) The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 0) The Justification of the Induction Scheme The Final Simplification in the Base Case (Step 1) The Expansion of ENDP in the Induction Step (Step 2) Popping out of an Inductive Proof Overview of the Expansion of ENDP in the Base Case The Simplification of the Induction Conclusion (Step 3) The Q.E.D. Message Overview of the Final Simplification in the Base Case The Final Simplification in the Base Case (Step 2) Perhaps Name the Formula Above Undocumented Topic A Trivial Proof

The-method Advanced-features Interesting-applications Tips Alternative-introduction Tidbits Annotated-ACL2-scripts Startup ACL2-as-standalone-program ACL2-sedan Talks Nqthm-to-ACL2 Emacs

About-ACL2

Debugging Miscellaneous Output-controls Macros Interfacing-tools

Interfacing-tools Hardware-verification Software-verification Math Testing-utilities

Overview of the Simplification of the Base Case to T

Subgoal *1/1 (IMPLIES (ENDP A) (EQUAL (APP (APP A B) C) (APP A (APP B C)))). By the simple :definition ENDP we reduce the conjecture to Subgoal *1/1' (IMPLIES (NOT (CONSP A)) (EQUAL (APP (APP A B) C) (APP A (APP B C)))). But simplification reduces this to T, using the :definition APP and primitive type reasoning.