UseAuto.v

(** * UseAuto: Theory and Practice of Automation in Coq Proofs *)

(* Chapter maintained by Arthur Chargueraud *)

(** In a machine-checked proof, every single detail has to be
    justified.  This can result in huge proof scripts. Fortunately,
    Coq comes with a proof-search mechanism and with several decision
    procedures that enable the system to automatically synthesize
    simple pieces of proof. Automation is very powerful when set up
    appropriately. The purpose of this chapter is to explain the
    basics of working of automation.

    The chapter is organized in two parts. The first part focuses on a
    general mechanism called "proof search." In short, proof search
    consists in naively trying to apply lemmas and assumptions in all
    possible ways. The second part describes "decision procedures",
    which are tactics that are very good at solving proof obligations
    that fall in some particular fragment of the logic of Coq.

    Many of the examples used in this chapter consist of small lemmas 
    that have been made up to illustrate particular aspects of automation.
    These examples are completely independent from the rest of the Software
    Foundations course. This chapter also contains some bigger examples
    which are used to explain how to use automation in realistic proofs.
    These examples are taken from other chapters of the course (mostly
    from STLC), and the proofs that we present make use of the tactics
    from the library [LibTactics.v], which is presented in the chapter
    [UseTactics]. *)

Require Import LibTactics.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** * Basic Features of Proof Search *)

(** The idea of proof search is to replace a sequence of tactics
    applying lemmas and assumptions with a call to a single tactic,
    for example [auto]. This form of proof automation saves a lot of
    effort. It typically leads to much shorter proof scripts, and to
    scripts that are typically more robust to change.  If one makes a
    little change to a definition, a proof that exploits automation
    probably won't need to be modified at all. Of course, using too
    much automation is a bad idea.  When a proof script no longer
    records the main arguments of a proof, it becomes difficult to fix
    it when it gets broken after a change in a definition. Overall, a
    reasonable use of automation is generally a big win, as it saves a
    lot of time both in building proof scripts and in subsequently
    maintaining those proof scripts. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Strength of Proof Search *)

(** We are going to study four proof-search tactics: [auto], [eauto],
    [iauto] and [jauto]. The tactics [auto] and [eauto] are builtin
    in Coq. The tactic [iauto] is a shorthand for the builtin tactic
    [try solve [intuition eauto]]. The tactic [jauto] is defined in
    the library [LibTactics], and simply performs some preprocessing
    of the goal before calling [eauto]. The goal of this chapter is 
    to explain the general principles of proof search and to give 
    rule of thumbs for guessing which of the four tactics mentioned
    above is best suited for solving a given goal.
    
    Proof search is a compromise between efficiency and
    expressiveness, that is, a tradeoff between how complex goals the
    tactic can solve and how much time the tactic requires for
    terminating. The tactic [auto] builds proofs only by using the
    basic tactics [reflexivity], [assumption], and [apply]. The tactic
    [eauto] can also exploit [eapply]. The tactic [jauto] extends
    [eauto] by being able to open conjunctions and existentials that
    occur in the context.  The tactic [iauto] is able to deal with
    conjunctions, disjunctions, and negation in a quite clever way;
    however it is not able to open existentials from the context. 
    Also, [iauto] usually becomes very slow when the goal involves
    several disjunctions.
    
    Note that proof search tactics never perform any rewriting
    step (tactics [rewrite], [subst]), nor any case analysis on an
    arbitrary data structure or predicate (tactics [destruct] and
    [inversion]), nor any proof by induction (tactic [induction]). So,
    proof search is really intended to automate the final steps from
    the various branches of a proof. It is not able to discover the
    overall structure of a proof. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Basics *)

(** The tactic [auto] is able to solve a goal that can be proved
    using a sequence of [intros], [apply], [assumption], and [reflexivity].
    Two examples follow. The first one shows the ability for
    [auto] to call [reflexivity] at any time. In fact, calling 
    [reflexivity] is always the first thing that [auto] tries to do. *)

Lemma solving_by_reflexivity : 
  2 + 3 = 5.
Proof. auto. Qed.

(** The second example illustrates a proof where a sequence of 
    two calls to [apply] are needed. The goal is to prove that
    if [Q n] implies [P n] for any [n] and if [Q n] holds for any [n],
    then [P 2] holds. *)

Lemma solving_by_apply : forall (P Q : nat->Prop),
  (forall n, Q n -> P n) -> 
  (forall n, Q n) ->
  P 2.
Proof. auto. Qed.

(** We can ask [auto] to tell us what proof it came up with,
    by invoking [info_auto] in place of [auto]. *)
    
Lemma solving_by_apply' : forall (P Q : nat->Prop),
  (forall n, Q n -> P n) -> 
  (forall n, Q n) ->
  P 2.
Proof. info_auto. Qed.
  (* The output is: [intro P; intro Q; intro H;] *)
  (* followed with [intro H0; simple apply H; simple apply H0]. *)
  (* i.e., the sequence [intros P Q H H0; apply H; apply H0]. *)

(** The tactic [auto] can invoke [apply] but not [eapply]. So, [auto]
    cannot exploit lemmas whose instantiation cannot be directly
    deduced from the proof goal. To exploit such lemmas, one needs to
    invoke the tactic [eauto], which is able to call [eapply].
    
    In the following example, the first hypothesis asserts that [P n]
    is true when [Q m] is true for some [m], and the goal is to prove
    that [Q 1] implies [P 2].  This implication follows direction from
    the hypothesis by instantiating [m] as the value [1].  The
    following proof script shows that [eauto] successfully solves the
    goal, whereas [auto] is not able to do so. *)

Lemma solving_by_eapply : forall (P Q : nat->Prop),
  (forall n m, Q m -> P n) ->
  Q 1 -> P 2.
Proof. auto. eauto. Qed.

(** Remark: Again, we can use [info_eauto] to see what proof [eauto]
    comes up with. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Conjunctions *)

(** So far, we've seen that [eauto] is stronger than [auto] in the
    sense that it can deal with [eapply]. In the same way, we are going
    to see how [jauto] and [iauto] are stronger than [auto] and [eauto] 
    in the sense that they provide better support for conjunctions. *)
 
(** The tactics [auto] and [eauto] can prove a goal of the form
    [F /\ F'], where [F] and [F'] are two propositions, as soon as
    both [F] and [F'] can be proved in the current context. 
    An example follows. *)

Lemma solving_conj_goal : forall (P : nat->Prop) (F : Prop),
  (forall n, P n) -> F -> F /\ P 2.
Proof. auto. Qed.

(** However, when an assumption is a conjunction, [auto] and [eauto]
    are not able to exploit this conjunction. It can be quite
    surprising at first that [eauto] can prove very complex goals but
    that it fails to prove that [F /\ F'] implies [F]. The tactics
    [iauto] and [jauto] are able to decompose conjunctions from the context. 
    Here is an example. *)

Lemma solving_conj_hyp : forall (F F' : Prop),
  F /\ F' -> F.
Proof. auto. eauto. jauto. (* or [iauto] *) Qed.

(** The tactic [jauto] is implemented by first calling a
    pre-processing tactic called [jauto_set], and then calling
    [eauto]. So, to understand how [jauto] works, one can directly
    call the tactic [jauto_set]. *)

Lemma solving_conj_hyp' : forall (F F' : Prop),
  F /\ F' -> F.
Proof. intros. jauto_set. eauto. Qed.

(** Next is a more involved goal that can be solved by [iauto] and
    [jauto]. *)

Lemma solving_conj_more : forall (P Q R : nat->Prop) (F : Prop),
  (F /\ (forall n m, (Q m /\ R n) -> P n)) ->
  (F -> R 2) -> 
  Q 1 ->
  P 2 /\ F.
Proof. jauto. (* or [iauto] *) Qed.

(** The strategy of [iauto] and [jauto] is to run a global analysis of
    the top-level conjunctions, and then call [eauto].  For this
    reason, those tactics are not good at dealing with conjunctions
    that occur as the conclusion of some universally quantified
    hypothesis. The following example illustrates a general weakness
    of Coq proof search mechanisms. *)

Lemma solving_conj_hyp_forall : forall (P Q : nat->Prop),
  (forall n, P n /\ Q n) -> P 2.
Proof. 
  auto. eauto. iauto. jauto.
  (* Nothing works, so we have to do some of the work by hand *)
  intros. destruct (H 2). auto.
Qed.

(** This situation is slightly disappointing, since automation is 
    able to prove the following goal, which is very similar. The 
    only difference is that the universal quantification has been
    distributed over the conjunction. *)

Lemma solved_by_jauto : forall (P Q : nat->Prop) (F : Prop),
  (forall n, P n) /\ (forall n, Q n) -> P 2.
Proof. jauto. (* or [iauto] *) Qed.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Disjunctions *)

(** The tactics [auto] and [eauto] can handle disjunctions that
    occur in the goal. *)

Lemma solving_disj_goal : forall (F F' : Prop),
  F -> F \/ F'.
Proof. auto. Qed.

(** However, only [iauto] is able to automate reasoning on the
    disjunctions that appear in the context. For example, [iauto] can
    prove that [F \/ F'] entails [F' \/ F]. *)

Lemma solving_disj_hyp : forall (F F' : Prop),
  F \/ F' -> F' \/ F.
Proof. auto. eauto. jauto. iauto. Qed.

(** More generally, [iauto] can deal with complex combinations of
    conjunctions, disjunctions, and negations. Here is an example. *)

Lemma solving_tauto : forall (F1 F2 F3 : Prop),
  ((~F1 /\ F3) \/ (F2 /\ ~F3)) ->
  (F2 -> F1) ->
  (F2 -> F3) -> 
  ~F2.
Proof. iauto. Qed.

(** However, the ability of [iauto] to automatically perform a case
    analysis on disjunctions comes with a downside: [iauto] may be
    very slow. If the context involves several hypotheses with
    disjunctions, [iauto] typically generates an exponential number of
    subgoals on which [eauto] is called. One major advantage of [jauto]
    compared with [iauto] is that it never spends time performing this
    kind of case analyses. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Existentials *)

(** The tactics [eauto], [iauto], and [jauto] can prove goals whose
    conclusion is an existential. For example, if the goal is [exists
    x, f x], the tactic [eauto] introduces an existential variable,
    say [?25], in place of [x]. The remaining goal is [f ?25], and
    [eauto] tries to solve this goal, allowing itself to instantiate
    [?25] with any appropriate value. For example, if an assumption [f
    2] is available, then the variable [?25] gets instantiated with
    [2] and the goal is solved, as shown below. *)

Lemma solving_exists_goal : forall (f : nat->Prop),
  f 2 -> exists x, f x.
Proof. 
  auto. (* observe that [auto] does not deal with existentials, *)
  eauto. (* whereas [eauto], [iauto] and [jauto] solve the goal *) 
Qed.

(** A major strength of [jauto] over the other proof search tactics is
    that it is able to exploit the existentially-quantified
    hypotheses, i.e., those of the form [exists x, P]. *)

Lemma solving_exists_hyp : forall (f g : nat->Prop),
  (forall x, f x -> g x) ->
  (exists a, f a) -> 
  (exists a, g a).
Proof. 
  auto. eauto. iauto. (* All of these tactics fail, *)
  jauto.              (* whereas [jauto] succeeds. *)
  (* For the details, run [intros. jauto_set. eauto] *)
Qed.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Negation *)

(** The tactics [auto] and [eauto] suffer from some limitations with
    respect to the manipulation of negations, mostly related to the
    fact that negation, written [~ P], is defined as [P -> False] but
    that the unfolding of this definition is not performed
    automatically. Consider the following example. *)

Lemma negation_study_1 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  P 0 -> (forall x, ~ P x) -> False.
Proof.
  intros P H0 HX.
  eauto. (* It fails to see that [HX] applies *)
  unfold not in *. eauto. 
Qed.

(** For this reason, the tactics [iauto] and [jauto] systematically
    invoke [unfold not in *] as part of their pre-processing. So,
    they are able to solve the previous goal right away. *)
  
Lemma negation_study_2 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  P 0 -> (forall x, ~ P x) -> False.
Proof. jauto. (* or [iauto] *) Qed.

(** We will come back later on to the behavior of proof search with
    respect to the unfolding of definitions. *)
  

(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Equalities *)

(** Coq's proof-search feature is not good at exploiting equalities.
    It can do very basic operations, like exploiting reflexivity
    and symmetry, but that's about it. Here is a simple example 
    that [auto] can solve, by first calling [symmetry] and then
    applying the hypothesis. *)

Lemma equality_by_auto : forall (f g : nat->Prop),
  (forall x, f x = g x) -> g 2 = f 2.
Proof. auto. Qed.

(** To automate more advanced reasoning on equalities, one should
    rather try to use the tactic [congruence], which is presented at
    the end of this chapter in the "Decision Procedures" section. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** * How Proof Search Works *)

(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Search Depth *)

(** The tactic [auto] works as follows.  It first tries to call
    [reflexivity] and [assumption]. If one of these calls solves the
    goal, the job is done. Otherwise [auto] tries to apply the most
    recently introduced assumption that can be applied to the goal
    without producing and error. This application produces
    subgoals. There are two possible cases. If the sugboals produced
    can be solved by a recursive call to [auto], then the job is done.
    Otherwise, if this application produces at least one subgoal that
    [auto] cannot solve, then [auto] starts over by trying to apply
    the second most recently introduced assumption. It continues in a
    similar fashion until it finds a proof or until no assumption
    remains to be tried.
    
    It is very important to have a clear idea of the backtracking
    process involved in the execution of the [auto] tactic; otherwise
    its behavior can be quite puzzling. For example, [auto] is not
    able to solve the following triviality. *)

Lemma search_depth_0 : 
  True /\ True /\ True /\ True /\ True /\ True.
Proof.
  auto.
Abort.

(** The reason [auto] fails to solve the goal is because there are
    too many conjunctions. If there had been only five of them, [auto]
    would have successfully solved the proof, but six is too many.
    The tactic [auto] limits the number of lemmas and hypotheses
    that can be applied in a proof, so as to ensure that the proof 
    search eventually terminates. By default, the maximal number 
    of steps is five. One can specify a different bound, writing 
    for example [auto 6] to search for a proof involving at most 
    six steps. For example, [auto 6] would solve the previous lemma.
    (Similarly, one can invoke [eauto 6] or [intuition eauto 6].)
    The argument [n] of [auto n] is called the "search depth."
    The tactic [auto] is simply defined as a shorthand for [auto 5].

    The behavior of [auto n] can be summarized as follows. It first
    tries to solve the goal using [reflexivity] and [assumption]. If
    this fails, it tries to apply a hypothesis (or a lemma that has
    been registered in the hint database), and this application
    produces a number of sugoals. The tactic [auto (n-1)] is then
    called on each of those subgoals. If all the subgoals are solved,
    the job is completed, otherwise [auto n] tries to apply a
    different hypothesis.
      
    During the process, [auto n] calls [auto (n-1)], which in turn
    might call [auto (n-2)], and so on. The tactic [auto 0] only
    tries [reflexivity] and [assumption], and does not try to apply
    any lemma. Overall, this means that when the maximal number of 
    steps allowed has been exceeded, the [auto] tactic stops searching 
    and backtracks to try and investigate other paths. *)

(** The following lemma admits a unique proof that involves exactly
    three steps. So, [auto n] proves this goal iff [n] is greater than
    three. *)

Lemma search_depth_1 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  P 0 ->
  (P 0 -> P 1) ->
  (P 1 -> P 2) ->
  (P 2).
Proof. 
  auto 0. (* does not find the proof *)
  auto 1. (* does not find the proof *)
  auto 2. (* does not find the proof *)
  auto 3. (* finds the proof *)
          (* more generally, [auto n] solves the goal if [n >= 3] *)
Qed. 

(** We can generalize the example by introducing an assumption
    asserting that [P k] is derivable from [P (k-1)] for all [k],
    and keep the assumption [P 0]. The tactic [auto], which is the 
    same as [auto 5], is able to derive [P k] for all values of [k]
    less than 5. For example, it can prove [P 4]. *)

Lemma search_depth_3 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  (* Hypothesis H1: *) (P 0) ->  
  (* Hypothesis H2: *) (forall k, P (k-1) -> P k) ->  
  (* Goal:          *) (P 4).
Proof. auto. Qed.

(** However, to prove [P 5], one needs to call at least [auto 6]. *)

Lemma search_depth_4 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  (* Hypothesis H1: *) (P 0) ->  
  (* Hypothesis H2: *) (forall k, P (k-1) -> P k) ->  
  (* Goal:          *) (P 5).
Proof. auto. auto 6. Qed.

(** Because [auto] looks for proofs at a limited depth, there are
    cases where [auto] can prove a goal [F] and can prove a goal 
    [F'] but cannot prove [F /\ F']. In the following example, 
    [auto] can prove [P 4] but it is not able to prove [P 4 /\ P 4],
    because the splitting of the conjunction consumes one proof step. 
    To prove the conjunction, one needs to increase the search depth,
    using at least [auto 6]. *)

Lemma search_depth_5 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  (* Hypothesis H1: *) (P 0) ->  
  (* Hypothesis H2: *) (forall k, P (k-1) -> P k) ->  
  (* Goal:          *) (P 4 /\ P 4).
Proof. auto. auto 6. Qed.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Backtracking *)

(** In the previous section, we have considered proofs where
    at each step there was a unique assumption that [auto]
    could apply. In general, [auto] can have several choices
    at every step. The strategy of [auto] consists of trying all 
    of the possibilities (using a depth-first search exploration).

    To illustrate how automation works, we are going to extend the
    previous example with an additional assumption asserting that
    [P k] is also derivable from [P (k+1)]. Adding this hypothesis
    offers a new possibility that [auto] could consider at every step. 
    
    There exists a special command that one can use for tracing
    all the steps that proof-search considers. To view such a
    trace, one should write [debug eauto]. (For some reason, the
    command [debug auto] does not exist, so we have to use the
    command [debug eauto] instead.) *)

Lemma working_of_auto_1 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  (* Hypothesis H1: *) (P 0) ->  
  (* Hypothesis H2: *) (forall k, P (k+1) -> P k) ->  
  (* Hypothesis H3: *) (forall k, P (k-1) -> P k) ->
  (* Goal:          *) (P 2).
(* Uncomment "debug" in the following line to see the debug trace: *)
Proof. intros P H1 H2 H3. (* debug *) eauto. Qed.

(** The output message produced by [debug eauto] is as follows.
<<
    depth=5 
    depth=4 apply H3
    depth=3 apply H3
    depth=3 exact H1
>>
    The depth indicates the value of [n] with which [eauto n] is 
    called. The tactics shown in the message indicate that the first 
    thing that [eauto] has tried to do is to apply [H3]. The effect of 
    applying [H3] is to replace the goal [P 2] with the goal [P 1]. 
    Then, again, [H3] has been applied, changing the goal [P 1] into 
    [P 0]. At that point, the goal was exactly the hypothesis [H1]. 

    It seems that [eauto] was quite lucky there, as it never even
    tried to use the hypothesis [H2] at any time. The reason is that
    [auto] always tries to use the most recently introduced hypothesis
    first, and [H3] is a more recent hypothesis than [H2] in the goal.
    So, let's permute the hypotheses [H2] and [H3] and see what
    happens. *)

Lemma working_of_auto_2 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  (* Hypothesis H1: *) (P 0) ->  
  (* Hypothesis H3: *) (forall k, P (k-1) -> P k) ->
  (* Hypothesis H2: *) (forall k, P (k+1) -> P k) ->  
  (* Goal:          *) (P 2).
Proof. intros P H1 H3 H2. (* debug *) eauto. Qed.

(** This time, the output message suggests that the proof search 
    investigates many possibilities. Replacing [debug eauto] with
    [info_eauto], we observe that the proof that [eauto] comes up 
    with is actually not the simplest one.
           [apply H2; apply H3; apply H3; apply H3; exact H1]
    This proof goes through the proof obligation [P 3], even though 
    it is not any useful. The following tree drawing describes
    all the goals that automation has been through. 
<<    
    |5||4||3||2||1||0| -- below, tabulation indicates the depth

    [P 2]
    -> [P 3]
       -> [P 4]
          -> [P 5]
             -> [P 6]
                -> [P 7]
                -> [P 5] 
             -> [P 4]
                -> [P 5]
                -> [P 3] 
          --> [P 3]
             -> [P 4]
                -> [P 5]
                -> [P 3] 
             -> [P 2]
                -> [P 3]
                -> [P 1] 
       -> [P 2]
          -> [P 3]
             -> [P 4]
                -> [P 5]
                -> [P 3] 
             -> [P 2]
                -> [P 3]
                -> [P 1] 
          -> [P 1]
             -> [P 2]
                -> [P 3]
                -> [P 1] 
             -> [P 0]
                -> !! Done !! 
>>
    The first few lines read as follows. To prove [P 2], [eauto 5] 
    has first tried to apply [H2], producing the subgoal [P 3]. 
    To solve it, [eauto 4] has tried again to apply [H2], producing
    the goal [P 4]. Similarly, the search goes through [P 5], [P 6] 
    and [P 7]. When reaching [P 7], the tactic [eauto 0] is called 
    but as it is not allowed to try and apply any lemma, it fails. 
    So, we come back to the goal [P 6], and try this time to apply 
    hypothesis [H3], producing the subgoal [P 5]. Here again,
    [eauto 0] fails to solve this goal.
    
    The process goes on and on, until backtracking to [P 3] and trying
    to apply [H2] three times in a row, going through [P 2] and [P 1]
    and [P 0]. This search tree explains why [eauto] came up with a  
    proof starting with [apply H2]. *) 


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Adding Hints *)

(** By default, [auto] (and [eauto]) only tries to apply the
    hypotheses that appear in the proof context. There are two
    possibilities for telling [auto] to exploit a lemma that have
    been proved previously: either adding the lemma as an assumption
    just before calling [auto], or adding the lemma as a hint, so
    that it can be used by every calls to [auto].

    The first possibility is useful to have [auto] exploit a lemma
    that only serves at this particular point. To add the lemma as
    hypothesis, one can type [generalize mylemma; intros], or simply
    [lets: mylemma] (the latter requires [LibTactics.v]).
    
    The second possibility is useful for lemmas that need to be
    exploited several times. The syntax for adding a lemma as a hint
    is [Hint Resolve mylemma]. For example, the lemma asserting than
    any number is less than or equal to itself, [forall x, x <= x],
    called [Le.le_refl] in the Coq standard library, can be added as a
    hint as follows. *)

Hint Resolve Le.le_refl.
    
(** A convenient shorthand for adding all the constructors of an
    inductive datatype as hints is the command [Hint Constructors
    mydatatype].
    
    Warning: some lemmas, such as transitivity results, should
    not be added as hints as they would very badly affect the
    performance of proof search. The description of this problem
    and the presentation of a general work-around for transitivity
    lemmas appear further on. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Integration of Automation in Tactics *)

(** The library "LibTactics" introduces a convenient feature for
    invoking automation after calling a tactic. In short, it suffices
    to add the symbol star ([*]) to the name of a tactic. For example,
    [apply* H] is equivalent to [apply H; auto_star], where [auto_star]
    is a tactic that can be defined as needed.

    The definition of [auto_star], which determines the meaning of the
    star symbol, can be modified whenever needed. Simply write:
       Ltac auto_star ::= a_new_definition.
]] 
    Observe the use of [::=] instead of [:=], which indicates that the
    tactic is being rebound to a new definition. So, the default
    definition is as follows. *)

Ltac auto_star ::= try solve [ jauto ].

(** Nearly all standard Coq tactics and all the tactics from
    "LibTactics" can be called with a star symbol. For example, one
    can invoke [subst*], [destruct* H], [inverts* H], [lets* I: H x],
    [specializes* H x], and so on... There are two notable exceptions.
    The tactic [auto*] is just another name for the tactic
    [auto_star].  And the tactic [apply* H] calls [eapply H] (or the
    more powerful [applys H] if needed), and then calls [auto_star].
    Note that there is no [eapply* H] tactic, use [apply* H]
    instead. *)

(** In large developments, it can be convenient to use two degrees of
    automation. Typically, one would use a fast tactic, like [auto],
    and a slower but more powerful tactic, like [jauto]. To allow for
    a smooth coexistence of the two form of automation, [LibTactics.v]
    also defines a "tilde" version of tactics, like [apply~ H],
    [destruct~ H], [subst~], [auto~] and so on. The meaning of the
    tilde symbol is described by the [auto_tilde] tactic, whose
    default implementation is [auto]. *)


Ltac auto_tilde ::= auto.

(** In the examples that follow, only [auto_star] is needed. *)

(** An alternative, possibly more efficient version of auto_star is the
    following":

    Ltac auto_star ::= try solve [ eassumption | auto | jauto ].

    With the above definition, [auto_star] first tries to solve the
    goal using the assumptions; if it fails, it tries using [auto],
    and if this still fails, then it calls [jauto]. Even though
    [jauto] is strictly stronger than [eassumption] and [auto], it
    makes sense to call these tactics first, because, when the
    succeed, they save a lot of time, and when they fail to prove
    the goal, they fail very quickly.".

*)

(* ####################################################### *)
(** * Examples of Use of Automation *)

(** Let's see how to use proof search in practice on the main theorems
    of the "Software Foundations" course, proving in particular
    results such as determinism, preservation and progress. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Determinism *)

Module DeterministicImp.
  Require Import Imp.

(** Recall the original proof of the determinism lemma for the IMP
    language, shown below. *)

Theorem ceval_deterministic: forall c st st1 st2,
  c / st || st1 ->
  c / st || st2 ->
  st1 = st2.
Proof. 
  intros c st st1 st2 E1 E2.
  generalize dependent st2.
  (ceval_cases (induction E1) Case); intros st2 E2; inversion E2; subst. 
  Case "E_Skip". reflexivity.
  Case "E_Ass". reflexivity.
  Case "E_Seq". 
    assert (st' = st'0) as EQ1.
      SCase "Proof of assertion". apply IHE1_1; assumption.
    subst st'0.
    apply IHE1_2. assumption. 
  Case "E_IfTrue". 
    SCase "b1 evaluates to true".
      apply IHE1. assumption.
    SCase "b1 evaluates to false (contradiction)".
      rewrite H in H5. inversion H5.
  Case "E_IfFalse". 
    SCase "b1 evaluates to true (contradiction)".
      rewrite H in H5. inversion H5.
    SCase "b1 evaluates to false".
      apply IHE1. assumption.
  Case "E_WhileEnd". 
    SCase "b1 evaluates to true".
      reflexivity.
    SCase "b1 evaluates to false (contradiction)".
      rewrite H in H2. inversion H2.
  Case "E_WhileLoop". 
    SCase "b1 evaluates to true (contradiction)".
      rewrite H in H4. inversion H4.
    SCase "b1 evaluates to false".
      assert (st' = st'0) as EQ1.
        SSCase "Proof of assertion". apply IHE1_1; assumption.
      subst st'0.
      apply IHE1_2. assumption. 
Qed.

(** Exercise: rewrite this proof using [auto] whenever possible.
    (The solution uses [auto] 9 times.) *)

Theorem ceval_deterministic': forall c st st1 st2,
  c / st || st1 ->
  c / st || st2 ->
  st1 = st2.
Proof. 
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.

(** In fact, using automation is not just a matter of calling [auto]
    in place of one or two other tactics. Using automation is about
    rethinking the organization of sequences of tactics so as to
    minimize the effort involved in writing and maintaining the proof.
    This process is eased by the use of the tactics from
    [LibTactics.v].  So, before trying to optimize the way automation
    is used, let's first rewrite the proof of determinism:
      - use [introv H] instead of [intros x H],
      - use [gen x] instead of [generalize dependent x],
      - use [inverts H] instead of [inversion H; subst],
      - use [tryfalse] to handle contradictions, and get rid of
        the cases where [beval st b1 = true] and [beval st b1 = false]
        both appear in the context,
      - stop using [ceval_cases] to label subcases. *)  

Theorem ceval_deterministic'': forall c st st1 st2,
  c / st || st1 ->
  c / st || st2 ->
  st1 = st2.
Proof. 
  introv E1 E2. gen st2. 
  induction E1; intros; inverts E2; tryfalse.
  auto.
  auto.
  assert (st' = st'0). auto. subst. auto.
  auto.
  auto.
  auto.
  assert (st' = st'0). auto. subst. auto.
Qed.

(** To obtain a nice clean proof script, we have to remove the calls
    [assert (st' = st'0)]. Such a tactic invokation is not nice
    because it refers to some variables whose name has been
    automatically generated. This kind of tactics tend to be very
    brittle.  The tactic [assert (st' = st'0)] is used to assert the
    conclusion that we want to derive from the induction
    hypothesis. So, rather than stating this conclusion explicitly, we
    are going to ask Coq to instantiate the induction hypothesis,
    using automation to figure out how to instantiate it. The tactic
    [forwards], described in [LibTactics.v] precisely helps with
    instantiating a fact. So, let's see how it works out on our
    example. *)

Theorem ceval_deterministic''': forall c st st1 st2,
  c / st || st1 ->
  c / st || st2 ->
  st1 = st2.
Proof. 
  (* Let's replay the proof up to the [assert] tactic. *)
  introv E1 E2. gen st2. 
  induction E1; intros; inverts E2; tryfalse.
  auto. auto.
  (* We duplicate the goal for comparing different proofs. *) 
  dup 4.

  (* The old proof: *)
  assert (st' = st'0). apply IHE1_1. apply H1.
    (* produces [H: st' = st'0]. *) skip.

  (* The new proof, without automation: *)
  forwards: IHE1_1. apply H1.
    (* produces [H: st' = st'0]. *) skip.

  (* The new proof, with automation: *)
  forwards: IHE1_1. eauto.
    (* produces [H: st' = st'0]. *) skip.

  (* The new proof, with integrated automation: *)
  forwards*: IHE1_1. 
    (* produces [H: st' = st'0]. *) skip.

Abort.

(** To polish the proof script, it remains to factorize the calls
    to [auto], using the star symbol. The proof of determinism can then
    be rewritten in only four lines, including no more than 10 tactics. *)

Theorem ceval_deterministic'''': forall c st st1 st2,
  c / st || st1  ->
  c / st || st2 ->
  st1 = st2.
Proof. 
  introv E1 E2. gen st2. 
  induction E1; intros; inverts* E2; tryfalse.
  forwards*: IHE1_1. subst*.
  forwards*: IHE1_1. subst*.
Qed.

End DeterministicImp.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Preservation for STLC *)

Module PreservationProgressStlc.
  Require Import StlcProp.
  Import STLC.
  Import STLCProp.

(** Consider the proof of perservation of STLC, shown below.
    This proof already uses [eauto] through the triple-dot
    mechanism. *)

Theorem preservation : forall t t' T,
  has_type empty t T  ->
  t ==> t'  ->
  has_type empty t' T.
Proof with eauto.
  remember (@empty ty) as Gamma. 
  intros t t' T HT. generalize dependent t'.   
  (has_type_cases (induction HT) Case); intros t' HE; subst Gamma.
  Case "T_Var".
    inversion HE. 
  Case "T_Abs".
    inversion HE.  
  Case "T_App".
    inversion HE; subst...
    (* (step_cases (inversion HE) SCase); subst...*)
    (* The ST_App1 and ST_App2 cases are immediate by induction, and
       auto takes care of them *)
    SCase "ST_AppAbs".
      apply substitution_preserves_typing with T11...
      inversion HT1...  
  Case "T_True". 
    inversion HE.
  Case "T_False".
    inversion HE.
  Case "T_If".
    inversion HE; subst...
Qed.

(** Exercise: rewrite this proof using tactics from [LibTactics] 
    and calling automation using the star symbol rather than the
    triple-dot notation. More precisely, make use of the tactics 
    [inverts*] and [applys*] to call [auto*] after a call to 
    [inverts] or to [applys]. The solution is three lines long.*)

Theorem preservation' : forall t t' T,
  has_type empty t T  ->
  t ==> t'  ->
  has_type empty t' T.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Progress for STLC *)

(** Consider the proof of the progress theorem. *)

Theorem progress : forall t T, 
  has_type empty t T ->
  value t \/ exists t', t ==> t'.
Proof with eauto.
  intros t T Ht.
  remember (@empty ty) as Gamma.
  (has_type_cases (induction Ht) Case); subst Gamma...
  Case "T_Var".
    inversion H. 
  Case "T_App".
    right. destruct IHHt1...
    SCase "t1 is a value".
      destruct IHHt2...
      SSCase "t2 is a value".
        inversion H; subst; try solve by inversion. 
        exists ([x0:=t2]t)...
      SSCase "t2 steps".
       destruct H0 as [t2' Hstp]. exists (tapp t1 t2')...
    SCase "t1 steps".
      destruct H as [t1' Hstp]. exists (tapp t1' t2)...
  Case "T_If". 
    right. destruct IHHt1...
    destruct t1; try solve by inversion...
    inversion H. exists (tif x0 t2 t3)...
Qed.

(** Exercise: optimize the above proof.
    Hint: make use of [destruct*] and [inverts*].
    The solution consists of 10 short lines. *)

Theorem progress' : forall t T, 
  has_type empty t T ->
  value t \/ exists t', t ==> t'.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.

End PreservationProgressStlc.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** BigStep and SmallStep *)

Module Semantics.
Require Import Smallstep.

(** Consider the proof relating a small-step reduction judgment 
    to a big-step reduction judgment. *)

Theorem multistep__eval : forall t v,
  normal_form_of t v -> exists n, v = C n /\ t || n.
Proof.
  intros t v Hnorm.
  unfold normal_form_of in Hnorm.
  inversion Hnorm as [Hs Hnf]; clear Hnorm.
  rewrite nf_same_as_value in Hnf. inversion Hnf. clear Hnf.
  exists n. split. reflexivity.
  multi_cases (induction Hs) Case; subst.
  Case "multi_refl".
    apply E_Const.
  Case "multi_step".
    eapply step__eval. eassumption. apply IHHs. reflexivity.  
Qed.

(** Our goal is to optimize the above proof. It is generally
    easier to isolate inductions into separate lemmas. So,
    we are going to first prove an intermediate result
    that consists of the judgment over which the induction
    is being performed. *)

(** Exercise: prove the following result, using tactics
    [introv], [induction] and [subst], and [apply*].
    The solution is 3 lines long. *)
    
Theorem multistep_eval_ind : forall t v,
  t ==>* v -> forall n, C n = v -> t || n.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.

(** Exercise: using the lemma above, simplify the proof of
    the result [multistep__eval]. You should use the tactics
    [introv], [inverts], [split*] and [apply*].
    The solution is 2 lines long. *)
    
Theorem multistep__eval' : forall t v,
  normal_form_of t v -> exists n, v = C n /\ t || n.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.

(** If we try to combine the two proofs into a single one,
    we will likely fail, because of a limitation of the 
    [induction] tactic. Indeed, this tactic looses
    information when applied to a predicate whose arguments
    are not reduced to variables, such as [t ==>* (C n)].
    You will thus need to use the more powerful tactic called
    [dependent induction]. This tactic is available only after
    importing the [Program] library, as shown below. *)

Require Import Program.

(** Exercise: prove the lemma [multistep__eval] without invoking
    the lemma [multistep_eval_ind], that is, by inlining the proof 
    by induction involved in [multistep_eval_ind], using the
    tactic [dependent induction] instead of [induction].   
    The solution is 5 lines long. *)

Theorem multistep__eval'' : forall t v,
  normal_form_of t v -> exists n, v = C n /\ t || n.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.

End Semantics.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Preservation for STLCRef *)

Module PreservationProgressReferences.
  Require Import References.
  Import STLCRef.
  Hint Resolve store_weakening extends_refl.

(** The proof of preservation for [STLCRef] can be found in chapter
    [References]. It contains 58 lines (not counting the labelling of
    cases). The optimized proof script is more than twice shorter. The
    following material explains how to build the optimized proof
    script.  The resulting optimized proof script for the preservation
    theorem appears afterwards. *)

Theorem preservation : forall ST t t' T st st',
  has_type empty ST t T ->
  store_well_typed ST st ->
  t / st ==> t' / st' ->
  exists ST',
    (extends ST' ST /\ 
     has_type empty ST' t' T /\
     store_well_typed ST' st').
Proof.
  (* old: [Proof. with eauto using store_weakening, extends_refl.] 
     new: [Proof.], and the two lemmas are registered as hints
     before the proof of the lemma, possibly inside a section in
     order to restrict the scope of the hints. *)

  remember (@empty ty) as Gamma. introv Ht. gen t'.
  (has_type_cases (induction Ht) Case); introv HST Hstep; 
    (* old: [subst; try (solve by inversion); inversion Hstep; subst;
             try (eauto using store_weakening, extends_refl)] 
       new: [subst Gamma; inverts Hstep; eauto.]
       We want to be more precise on what exactly we substitute,
       and we do not want to call [try (solve by inversion)] which
       is way to slow. *)
   subst Gamma; inverts Hstep; eauto.

  Case "T_App". 
  SCase "ST_AppAbs". 
  (* old:
      exists ST. inversion Ht1; subst.
      split; try split... eapply substitution_preserves_typing... *)
  (* new: we use [inverts] in place of [inversion] and [splits] to
     split the conjunction, and [applys*] in place of [eapply...] *)
  exists ST. inverts Ht1. splits*. applys* substitution_preserves_typing.

  SCase "ST_App1".
  (* old:  
      eapply IHHt1 in H0...
      inversion H0 as [ST' [Hext [Hty Hsty]]].
      exists ST'... *)
  (* new: The tactic [eapply IHHt1 in H0...] applies [IHHt1] to [H0].
     But [H0] is only thing that [IHHt1] could be applied to, so
     there [eauto] can figure this out on its own. The tactic
     [forwards] is used to instantiate all the arguments of [IHHt1],
     producing existential variables and subgoals when needed. *)
  forwards: IHHt1. eauto. eauto. eauto.
  (* At this point, we need to decompose the hypothesis [H] that has
     just been created by [forwards]. This is done by the first part 
     of the preprocessing phase of [jauto]. *)
  jauto_set_hyps; intros.
  (* It remains to decompose the goal, which is done by the second 
     part of the preprocessing phase of [jauto]. *)
  jauto_set_goal; intros.
  (* All the subgoals produced can then be solved by [eauto]. *)
  eauto. eauto. eauto. 

  SCase "ST_App2".
  (* old:
      eapply IHHt2 in H5...
      inversion H5 as [ST' [Hext [Hty Hsty]]].
      exists ST'... *)
  (* new: this time, we need to call [forwards] on [IHHt2],
     and we call [jauto] right away, by writing [forwards*],
     proving the goal in a single tactic! *)
  forwards*: IHHt2.
  
  (* The same trick works for many of the other subgoals. *)
  forwards*: IHHt. 
  forwards*: IHHt. 
  forwards*: IHHt1. 
  forwards*: IHHt2. 
  forwards*: IHHt1. 

  Case "T_Ref".
  SCase "ST_RefValue". 
  (* old:
      exists (snoc ST T1). 
      inversion HST; subst.
      split.
        apply extends_snoc.
      split.
        replace (TRef T1)
         with (TRef (store_Tlookup (length st) (snoc ST T1))).
        apply T_Loc. 
        rewrite <- H. rewrite length_snoc. omega.
        unfold store_Tlookup. rewrite <- H. rewrite nth_eq_snoc...
        apply store_well_typed_snoc; assumption. *)
  (* new: in this proof case, we need to perform an inversion
     without removing the hypothesis. The tactic [inverts keep] 
     serves exactly this purpose. *)
  exists (snoc ST T1). inverts keep HST. splits. 
  (* The proof of the first subgoal needs not be changed *)
    apply extends_snoc.
  (* For the second subgoal, we use the tactic [applys_eq] to avoid
     a manual [replace] before [T_loc] can be applied. *)
    applys_eq T_Loc 1. 
  (* To justify the inequality, there is no need to call [rewrite <- H],
     because the tactic [omega] is able to exploit [H] on its own. 
     So, only the rewriting of [lenght_snoc] and the call to the
     tactic [omega] remain. *)
      rewrite length_snoc. omega.
  (* The next proof case is hard to polish because it relies on the
     lemma [nth_eq_snoc] whose statement is not automation-friendly.
     We'll come back to this proof case further on. *)
    unfold store_Tlookup. rewrite <- H. rewrite* nth_eq_snoc.
  (* Last, we replace [apply ..; assumption] with [apply* ..] *)
    apply* store_well_typed_snoc.

  forwards*: IHHt.  

  Case "T_Deref".
  SCase "ST_DerefLoc".
  (* old:
      exists ST. split; try split...
      destruct HST as [_ Hsty].
      replace T11 with (store_Tlookup l ST).
      apply Hsty...
      inversion Ht; subst... *)
  (* new: we start by calling [exists ST] and [splits*]. *)
  exists ST. splits*. 
  (* new: we replace [destruct HST as [_ Hsty]] by the following *)
  lets [_ Hsty]: HST.
  (* new: then we use the tactic [applys_eq] to avoid the need to
     perform a manual [replace] before applying [Hsty]. *)
  applys_eq* Hsty 1.
  (* new: we then can call [inverts] in place of [inversion;subst] *)
  inverts* Ht.

  forwards*: IHHt. 

  Case "T_Assign".
  SCase "ST_Assign".
  (* old: 
      exists ST. split; try split...
      eapply assign_pres_store_typing...
      inversion Ht1; subst... *)
  (* new: simply using nicer tactics *)
  exists ST. splits*. applys* assign_pres_store_typing. inverts* Ht1.

  forwards*: IHHt1. 
  forwards*: IHHt2. 
Qed.

(** Let's come back to the proof case that was hard to optimize. 
    The difficulty comes from the statement of [nth_eq_snoc], which
    takes the form [nth (length l) (snoc l x) d = x]. This lemma is
    hard to exploit because its first argument, [length l], mentions
    a list [l] that has to be exactly the same as the [l] occuring in
    [snoc l x]. In practice, the first argument is often a natural 
    number [n] that is provably equal to [length l] yet that is not
    syntactically equal to [length l]. There is a simple fix for
    making [nth_eq_snoc] easy to apply: introduce the intermediate
    variable [n] explicitly, so that the goal becomes
    [nth n (snoc l x) d = x], with a premise asserting [n = length l]. *)

Lemma nth_eq_snoc' : forall (A : Type) (l : list A) (x d : A) (n : nat),
  n = length l -> nth n (snoc l x) d = x.
Proof. intros. subst. apply nth_eq_snoc. Qed.

(** The proof case for [ref] from the preservation theorem then
    becomes much easier to prove, because [rewrite nth_eq_snoc']
    now succeeds. *)
    
Lemma preservation_ref : forall (st:store) (ST : store_ty) T1,
  length ST = length st ->
  TRef T1 = TRef (store_Tlookup (length st) (snoc ST T1)).
Proof.
  intros. dup. 

  (* A first proof, with an explicit [unfold] *)
  unfold store_Tlookup. rewrite* nth_eq_snoc'.

  (* A second proof, with a call to [fequal] *)
  fequal. symmetry. apply* nth_eq_snoc'.
Qed.

(** The optimized proof of preservation is summarized next. *)

Theorem preservation' : forall ST t t' T st st',
  has_type empty ST t T ->
  store_well_typed ST st ->
  t / st ==> t' / st' ->
  exists ST',
    (extends ST' ST /\ 
     has_type empty ST' t' T /\
     store_well_typed ST' st').
Proof.
  remember (@empty ty) as Gamma. introv Ht. gen t'.
  induction Ht; introv HST Hstep; subst Gamma; inverts Hstep; eauto.
  exists ST. inverts Ht1. splits*. applys* substitution_preserves_typing.  
  forwards*: IHHt1. 
  forwards*: IHHt2. 
  forwards*: IHHt. 
  forwards*: IHHt. 
  forwards*: IHHt1. 
  forwards*: IHHt2. 
  forwards*: IHHt1. 
  exists (snoc ST T1). inverts keep HST. splits. 
    apply extends_snoc.
    applys_eq T_Loc 1. 
      rewrite length_snoc. omega.
      unfold store_Tlookup. rewrite* nth_eq_snoc'.
    apply* store_well_typed_snoc.
  forwards*: IHHt.  
  exists ST. splits*. lets [_ Hsty]: HST.
   applys_eq* Hsty 1. inverts* Ht.
  forwards*: IHHt. 
  exists ST. splits*. applys* assign_pres_store_typing. inverts* Ht1.
  forwards*: IHHt1. 
  forwards*: IHHt2. 
Qed.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Progress for STLCRef *)

(** The proof of progress for [STLCRef] can be found in chapter
    [References]. It contains 53 lines and the optimized proof script
    is, here again, half the length. *)

Theorem progress : forall ST t T st,
  has_type empty ST t T ->
  store_well_typed ST st ->
  (value t \/ exists t', exists st', t / st ==> t' / st').
Proof.
  introv Ht HST. remember (@empty ty) as Gamma.
  induction Ht; subst Gamma; tryfalse; try solve [left*].
  right. destruct* IHHt1 as [K|].
    inverts K; inverts Ht1.
     destruct* IHHt2.
  right. destruct* IHHt as [K|].
    inverts K; try solve [inverts Ht]. eauto.
  right. destruct* IHHt as [K|].
    inverts K; try solve [inverts Ht]. eauto.
  right. destruct* IHHt1 as [K|].
    inverts K; try solve [inverts Ht1].
     destruct* IHHt2 as [M|].
      inverts M; try solve [inverts Ht2]. eauto.
  right. destruct* IHHt1 as [K|].
    inverts K; try solve [inverts Ht1]. destruct* n.
  right. destruct* IHHt.
  right. destruct* IHHt as [K|].
    inverts K; inverts Ht as M.
      inverts HST as N. rewrite* N in M.
  right. destruct* IHHt1 as [K|].
    destruct* IHHt2.
     inverts K; inverts Ht1 as M.
     inverts HST as N. rewrite* N in M.
Qed.

End PreservationProgressReferences.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Subtyping *)

Module SubtypingInversion.
  Require Import Sub.

(** Consider the inversion lemma for typing judgment 
    of abstractions in a type system with subtyping. *)

Lemma abs_arrow : forall x S1 s2 T1 T2, 
  has_type empty (tabs x S1 s2) (TArrow T1 T2) ->
     subtype T1 S1 
  /\ has_type (extend empty x S1) s2 T2.
Proof with eauto.
  intros x S1 s2 T1 T2 Hty.
  apply typing_inversion_abs in Hty.
  destruct Hty as [S2 [Hsub Hty]].
  apply sub_inversion_arrow in Hsub.
  destruct Hsub as [U1 [U2 [Heq [Hsub1 Hsub2]]]].
  inversion Heq; subst... 
Qed.

(** Exercise: optimize the proof script, using 
    [introv], [lets] and [inverts*]. In particular,
    you will find it useful to replace the pattern 
    [apply K in H. destruct H as I] with [lets I: K H]. 
    The solution is 4 lines. *)
   
Lemma abs_arrow' : forall x S1 s2 T1 T2, 
  has_type empty (tabs x S1 s2) (TArrow T1 T2) ->
     subtype T1 S1 
  /\ has_type (extend empty x S1) s2 T2.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.

(** The lemma [substitution_preserves_typing] has already been used to
    illustrate the working of [lets] and [applys] in chapter
    [UseTactics]. Optimize further this proof using automation (with
    the star symbol), and using the tactic [cases_if']. The solution
    is 33 lines, including the [Case] instructions (21 lines without
    them). *)

Lemma substitution_preserves_typing : forall Gamma x U v t S,
  has_type (extend Gamma x U) t S ->
  has_type empty v U ->
  has_type Gamma ([x:=v]t) S.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) admit.
Qed.

End SubtypingInversion.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** * Advanced Topics in Proof Search *)

(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Stating Lemmas in the Right Way *)

(** Due to its depth-first strategy, [eauto] can get exponentially
    slower as the depth search increases, even when a short proof
    exists. In general, to make proof search run reasonably fast, one
    should avoid using a depth search greater than 5 or 6. Moreover,
    one should try to minimize the number of applicable lemmas, and
    usually put first the hypotheses whose proof usefully instantiates
    the existential variables.

    In fact, the ability for [eauto] to solve certain goals actually
    depends on the order in which the hypotheses are stated. This point
    is illustrated through the following example, in which [P] is 
    a predicate on natural numbers. This predicate is such that 
    [P n] holds for any [n] as soon as [P m] holds for at least one [m]
    different from zero. The goal is to prove that [P 2] implies [P 1]. 
    When the hypothesis about [P] is stated in the form
    [forall n m, P m -> m <> 0 -> P n], then [eauto] works. However, with
    [forall n m, m <> 0 -> P m -> P n], the tactic [eauto] fails. *)
   
Lemma order_matters_1 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  (forall n m, P m -> m <> 0 -> P n) -> P 2 -> P 1.
Proof.  
  eauto. (* Success *)
  (* The proof: [intros P H K. eapply H. apply K. auto.] *)
Qed.

Lemma order_matters_2 : forall (P : nat->Prop),
  (forall n m, m <> 0 -> P m -> P n) -> P 5 -> P 1.
Proof.
  eauto. (* Failure *)

  (* To understand why, let us replay the previous proof *)
  intros P H K. 
  eapply H. 
  (* The application of [eapply] has left two subgoals,
     [?X <> 0] and [P ?X], where [?X] is an existential variable. *)
  (* Solving the first subgoal is easy for [eauto]: it suffices
     to instantiate [?X] as the value [1], which is the simplest
     value that satisfies [?X <> 0]. *)
  eauto.
  (* But then the second goal becomes [P 1], which is where we
     started from. So, [eauto] gets stuck at this point. *)
Abort.

(** It is very important to understand that the hypothesis [forall n
    m, P m -> m <> 0 -> P n] is eauto-friendly, whereas [forall n m, m
    <> 0 -> P m -> P n] really isn't.  Guessing a value of [m] for
    which [P m] holds and then checking that [m <> 0] holds works well
    because there are few values of [m] for which [P m] holds. So, it
    is likely that [eauto] comes up with the right one. On the other
    hand, guessing a value of [m] for which [m <> 0] and then checking
    that [P m] holds does not work well, because there are many values
    of [m] that satisfy [m <> 0] but not [P m]. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Unfolding of Definitions During Proof-Search *)

(** The use of intermediate definitions is generally encouraged in a
    formal development as it usually leads to more concise and more
    readable statements. Yet, definitions can make it a little harder
    to automate proofs. The problem is that it is not obvious for a
    proof search mechanism to know when definitions need to be
    unfolded. Note that a naive strategy that consists in unfolding
    all definitions before calling proof search does not scale up to
    large proofs, so we avoid it. This section introduces a few
    techniques for avoiding to manually unfold definitions before
    calling proof search. *)

(** To illustrate the treatment of definitions, let [P] be an abstract
    predicate on natural numbers, and let [myFact] be a definition
    denoting the proposition [P x] holds for any [x] less than or
    equal to 3. *)

Axiom P : nat -> Prop.

Definition myFact := forall x, x <= 3 -> P x.

(** Proving that [myFact] under the assumption that [P x] holds for
    any [x] should be trivial. Yet, [auto] fails to prove it unless we
    unfold the definition of [myFact] explicitly. *)

Lemma demo_hint_unfold_goal_1 : 
  (forall x, P x) -> myFact.
Proof.
  auto.                (* Proof search doesn't know what to do, *)
  unfold myFact. auto. (* unless we unfold the definition. *)
Qed.

(** To automate the unfolding of definitions that appear as proof
    obligation, one can use the command [Hint Unfold myFact] to tell
    Coq that it should always try to unfold [myFact] when [myFact]
    appears in the goal. *)

Hint Unfold myFact.

(** This time, automation is able to see through the definition
    of [myFact]. *)

Lemma demo_hint_unfold_goal_2 : 
  (forall x, P x) -> myFact.
Proof. auto. Qed.

(** However, the [Hint Unfold] mechanism only works for unfolding
    definitions that appear in the goal. In general, proof search does
    not unfold definitions from the context. For example, assume we
    want to prove that [P 3] holds under the assumption that [True ->
    myFact]. *)

Lemma demo_hint_unfold_context_1 : 
  (True -> myFact) -> P 3.
Proof.
  intros.
  auto.                      (* fails *)
  unfold myFact in *. auto.  (* succeeds *)
Qed.

(** There is actually one exception to the previous rule: a constant 
    occuring in an hypothesis is automatically unfolded if the 
    hypothesis can be directly applied to the current goal. For example, 
    [auto] can prove [myFact -> P 3], as illustrated below. *) 

Lemma demo_hint_unfold_context_2 : 
  myFact -> P 3.
Proof. auto. Qed.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Automation for Proving Absurd Goals *)

(** In this section, we'll see that lemmas concluding on a negation
    are generally not useful as hints, and that lemmas whose
    conclusion is [False] can be useful hints but having too many of
    them makes proof search inefficient. We'll also see a practical
    work-around to the efficiency issue. *)

(** Consider the following lemma, which asserts that a number
    less than or equal to 3 is not greater than 3. *)

Parameter le_not_gt : forall x,
  (x <= 3) -> ~ (x > 3).

(** Equivalently, one could state that a number greater than three is
    not less than or equal to 3. *)

Parameter gt_not_le : forall x,
  (x > 3) -> ~ (x <= 3).

(** In fact, both statements are equivalent to a third one stating
    that [x <= 3] and [x > 3] are contradictory, in the sense that
    they imply [False]. *)

Parameter le_gt_false : forall x,
  (x <= 3) -> (x > 3) -> False.

(** The following investigation aim at figuring out which of the three
    statments is the most convenient with respect to proof
    automation. The following material is enclosed inside a [Section],
    so as to restrict the scope of the hints that we are adding. In
    other words, after the end of the section, the hints added within
    the section will no longer be active.*)

Section DemoAbsurd1.

(** Let's try to add the first lemma, [le_not_gt], as hint,
    and see whether we can prove that the proposition
    [exists x, x <= 3 /\ x > 3] is absurd. *)

Hint Resolve le_not_gt.

Lemma demo_auto_absurd_1 : 
  (exists x, x <= 3 /\ x > 3) -> False.
Proof. 
  intros. jauto_set. (* decomposes the assumption *)
  (* debug *) eauto. (* does not see that [le_not_gt] could apply *)
  eapply le_not_gt. eauto. eauto.
Qed.

(** The lemma [gt_not_le] is symmetric to [le_not_gt], so it will not
    be any better. The third lemma, [le_gt_false], is a more useful
    hint, because it concludes on [False], so proof search will try to
    apply it when the current goal is [False]. *)

Hint Resolve le_gt_false.

Lemma demo_auto_absurd_2 : 
  (exists x, x <= 3 /\ x > 3) -> False.
Proof. 
  dup.

  (* detailed version: *)
  intros. jauto_set. (* debug *) eauto.

  (* short version: *)
  jauto. 
Qed.

(** In summary, a lemma of the form [H1 -> H2 -> False] is a much more
    effective hint than [H1 -> ~ H2], even though the two statments
    are equivalent up to the definition of the negation symbol [~]. *)

(** That said, one should be careful with adding lemmas whose
    conclusion is [False] as hint. The reason is that whenever
    reaching the goal [False], the proof search mechanism will
    potentially try to apply all the hints whose conclusion is [False]
    before applying the appropriate one.  *)

End DemoAbsurd1.

(** Adding lemmas whose conclusion is [False] as hint can be, locally,
    a very effective solution. However, this approach does not scale
    up for global hints.  For most practical applications, it is
    reasonable to give the name of the lemmas to be exploited for
    deriving a contradiction. The tactic [false H], provided by 
    [LibTactics] serves that purpose: [false H] replaces the goal
    with [False] and calls [eapply H]. Its behavior is described next.
    Observe that any of the three statements [le_not_gt], [gt_not_le]
    or [le_gt_false] can be used. *)

Lemma demo_false : forall x, 
  (x <= 3) -> (x > 3) -> 4 = 5.
Proof. 
  intros. dup 4.
  
  (* A failed proof: *)
  false. eapply le_gt_false.
    auto. (* here, [auto] does not prove [?x <= 3] by using [H] but 
             by using the lemma [le_refl : forall x, x <= x]. *)
    (* The second subgoal becomes [3 > 3], which is not provable. *)
    skip.

  (* A correct proof: *)
  false. eapply le_gt_false.
    eauto. (* here, [eauto] uses [H], as expected, to prove [?x <= 3] *)
    eauto. (* so the second subgoal becomes [x > 3] *)

  (* The same proof using [false]: *)
  false le_gt_false. eauto. eauto.

  (* The lemmas [le_not_gt] and [gt_not_le] work as well *)
  false le_not_gt. eauto. eauto.
Qed.

(** In the above example, [false le_gt_false; eauto] proves the goal,
    but [false le_gt_false; auto] does not, because [auto] does not
    correctly instantiate the existential variable. Note that [false*
    le_gt_false] would not work either, because the star symbol tries
    to call [auto] first. So, there are two possibilities for
    completing the proof: either call [false le_gt_false; eauto], or
    call [false* (le_gt_false 3)]. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Automation for Transitivity Lemmas *)

(** Some lemmas should never be added as hints, because they would
    very badly slow down proof search. The typical example is that of
    transitivity results. This section describes the problem and
    presents a general workaround.

    Consider a subtyping relation, written [subtype S T], that relates
    two object [S] and [T] of type [typ]. Assume that this relation
    has been proved reflexive and transitive. The corresponding lemmas
    are named [subtype_refl] and [subtype_trans]. *)

Parameter typ : Type.

Parameter subtype : typ -> typ -> Prop.

Parameter subtype_refl : forall T, 
  subtype T T.

Parameter subtype_trans : forall S T U,
  subtype S T -> subtype T U -> subtype S U.

(** Adding reflexivity as hint is generally a good idea,
    so let's add reflexivity of subtyping as hint. *)

Hint Resolve subtype_refl.

(** Adding transitivity as hint is generally a bad idea.  To
    understand why, let's add it as hint and see what happens.
    Because we cannot remove hints once we've added them, we are going
    to open a "Section," so as to restrict the scope of the
    transitivity hint to that section. *)
    
Section HintsTransitivity.

Hint Resolve subtype_trans.

(** Now, consider the goal [forall S T, subtype S T], which clearly has
    no hope of being solved. Let's call [eauto] on this goal. *)

Lemma transitivity_bad_hint_1 : forall S T,
  subtype S T.
Proof. 
  intros. (* debug *) eauto. (* Investigates 106 applications... *)
Abort.

(** Note that after closing the section, the hint [subtype_trans]
    is no longer active. *)

End HintsTransitivity.

(** In the previous example, the proof search has spent a lot of time
    trying to apply transitivity and reflexivity in every possible
    way.  Its process can be summarized as follows. The first goal is
    [subtype S T]. Since reflexivity does not apply, [eauto] invokes
    transitivity, which produces two subgoals, [subtype S ?X] and
    [subtype ?X T]. Solving the first subgoal, [subtype S ?X], is
    straightforward, it suffices to apply reflexivity. This unifies
    [?X] with [S]. So, the second sugoal, [subtype ?X T],
    becomes [subtype S T], which is exactly what we started from...

    The problem with the transitivity lemma is that it is applicable
    to any goal concluding on a subtyping relation. Because of this,
    [eauto] keeps trying to apply it even though it most often doesn't
    help to solve the goal. So, one should never add a transitivity
    lemma as a hint for proof search. *)

(** There is a general workaround for having automation to exploit
    transitivity lemmas without giving up on efficiency. This workaround
    relies on a powerful mechanism called "external hint." This 
    mechanism allows to manually describe the condition under which
    a particular lemma should be tried out during proof search. 
    
    For the case of transitivity of subtyping, we are going to tell
    Coq to try and apply the transitivity lemma on a goal of the form
    [subtype S U] only when the proof context already contains an
    assumption either of the form [subtype S T] or of the form
    [subtype T U]. In other words, we only apply the transitivity
    lemma when there is some evidence that this application might
    help.  To set up this "external hint," one has to write the
    following. *)

Hint Extern 1 (subtype ?S ?U) =>
  match goal with 
  | H: subtype S ?T |- _ => apply (@subtype_trans S T U)
  | H: subtype ?T U |- _ => apply (@subtype_trans S T U)
  end.

(** This hint declaration can be understood as follows.
    - "Hint Extern" introduces the hint.
    - The number "1" corresponds to a priority for proof search. 
      It doesn't matter so much what priority is used in practice.
    - The pattern [subtype ?S ?U] describes the kind of goal on
      which the pattern should apply. The question marks are used
      to indicate that the variables [?S] and [?U] should be bound
      to some value in the rest of the hint description.
    - The construction [match goal with ... end] tries to recognize
      patterns in the goal, or in the proof context, or both. 
    - The first pattern is [H: subtype S ?T |- _]. It indices that
      the context should contain an hypothesis [H] of type 
      [subtype S ?T], where [S] has to be the same as in the goal,
      and where [?T] can have any value.
    - The symbol [|- _] at the end of [H: subtype S ?T |- _] indicates
      that we do not impose further condition on how the proof 
      obligation has to look like.
    - The branch [=> apply (@subtype_trans S T U)] that follows
      indicates that if the goal has the form [subtype S U] and if
      there exists an hypothesis of the form [subtype S T], then
      we should try and apply transitivity lemma instantiated on
      the arguments [S], [T] and [U]. (Note: the symbol [@] in front of
      [subtype_trans] is only actually needed when the "Implicit Arguments"
      feature is activated.)
    - The other branch, which corresponds to an hypothesis of the form
      [H: subtype ?T U] is symmetrical. 

    Note: the same external hint can be reused for any other transitive 
    relation, simply by renaming [subtype] into the name of that relation. *)

(** Let us see an example illustrating how the hint works. *)

Lemma transitivity_workaround_1 : forall T1 T2 T3 T4,
  subtype T1 T2 -> subtype T2 T3 -> subtype T3 T4 -> subtype T1 T4.
Proof.
  intros. (* debug *) eauto. (* The trace shows the external hint being used *)
Qed.

(** We may also check that the new external hint does not suffer from the 
    complexity blow up. *)

Lemma transitivity_workaround_2 : forall S T,
  subtype S T.
Proof.
  intros. (* debug *) eauto. (* Investigates 0 applications *)
Abort.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** * Decision Procedures *)

(** A decision procedure is able to solve proof obligations whose
    statement admits a particular form. This section describes three
    useful decision procedures. The tactic [omega] handles goals
    involving arithmetic and inequalities, but not general
    multiplications.  The tactic [ring] handles goals involving
    arithmetic, including multiplications, but does not support
    inequalities. The tactic [congruence] is able to prove equalities
    and inequalities by exploiting equalities available in the proof
    context. *)


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Omega *)

(** The tactic [omega] supports natural numbers (type [nat]) as well as
    integers (type [Z], available by including the module [ZArith]).
    It supports addition, substraction, equalities and inequalities. 
    Before using [omega], one needs to import the module [Omega],
    as follows. *)

Require Import Omega.

(** Here is an example. Let [x] and [y] be two natural numbers
    (they cannot be negative). Assume [y] is less than 4, assume
    [x+x+1] is less than [y], and assume [x] is not zero. Then, 
    it must be the case that [x] is equal to one. *)

Lemma omega_demo_1 : forall (x y : nat),
  (y <= 4) -> (x + x + 1 <= y) -> (x <> 0) -> (x = 1).
Proof. intros. omega. Qed.

(** Another example: if [z] is the mean of [x] and [y], and if the 
    difference between [x] and [y] is at most [4], then the difference 
    between [x] and [z] is at most 2. *)

Lemma omega_demo_2 : forall (x y z : nat),
  (x + y = z + z) -> (x - y <= 4) -> (x - z <= 2).
Proof. intros. omega. Qed.

(** One can proof [False] using [omega] if the mathematical facts
    from the context are contradictory. In the following example,
    the constraints on the values [x] and [y] cannot be all
    satisfied in the same time. *)

Lemma omega_demo_3 : forall (x y : nat),
  (x + 5 <= y) -> (y - x < 3) -> False.
Proof. intros. omega. Qed.

(** Note: [omega] can prove a goal by contradiction only if its  
    conclusion is reduced [False]. The tactic [omega] always fails 
    when the conclusion is an arbitrary proposition [P], even though
    [False] implies any proposition [P] (by [ex_falso_quodlibet]). *)

Lemma omega_demo_4 : forall (x y : nat) (P : Prop),
  (x + 5 <= y) -> (y - x < 3) -> P.
Proof.
  intros. 
  (* Calling [omega] at this point fails with the message:
    "Omega: Can't solve a goal with proposition variables" *)
  (* So, one needs to replace the goal by [False] first. *)
  false. omega.
Qed.


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Ring *)

(** Compared with [omega], the tactic [ring] adds support for
    multiplications, however it gives up the ability to reason on
    inequations. Moreover, it supports only integers (type [Z]) and
    not natural numbers (type [nat]). Here is an example showing how
    to use [ring]. *)

Module RingDemo.
  Require Import ZArith.
  Open Scope Z_scope.
  (* Arithmetic symbols are now interpreted in [Z] *)

Lemma ring_demo : forall (x y z : Z), 
    x * (y + z) - z * 3 * x
  = x * y - 2 * x * z.
Proof. intros. ring. Qed.

End RingDemo. 


(* ####################################################### *)
(** ** Congruence *)

(** The tactic [congruence] is able to exploit equalities from the
    proof context in order to automatically perform the rewriting
    operations necessary to establish a goal. It is slightly more
    powerful than the tactic [subst], which can only handle equalities
    of the form [x = e] where [x] is a variable and [e] an
    expression. *)

Lemma congruence_demo_1 : 
   forall (f : nat->nat->nat) (g h : nat->nat) (x y z : nat), 
   f (g x) (g y) = z ->
   2 = g x ->
   g y = h z ->
   f 2 (h z) = z.
Proof. intros. congruence. Qed.

(** Moreover, [congruence] is able to exploit universally quantified
    equalities, for example [forall a, g a = h a]. *)

Lemma congruence_demo_2 : 
   forall (f : nat->nat->nat) (g h : nat->nat) (x y z : nat), 
   (forall a, g a = h a) ->
   f (g x) (g y) = z ->
   g x = 2 ->
   f 2 (h y) = z.
Proof. congruence. Qed.

(** Next is an example where [congruence] is very useful. *)

Lemma congruence_demo_4 : forall (f g : nat->nat),
  (forall a, f a = g a) ->
  f (g (g 2)) = g (f (f 2)).
Proof. congruence. Qed.

(** The tactic [congruence] is able to prove a contradiction if the
    goal entails an equality that contradicts an inequality available
    in the proof context. *)

Lemma congruence_demo_3 : 
   forall (f g h : nat->nat) (x : nat), 
   (forall a, f a = h a) ->
   g x = f x ->
   g x <> h x ->
   False.
Proof. congruence. Qed.

(** One of the strengths of [congruence] is that it is a very fast
    tactic. So, one should not hesitate to invoke it wherever it might
    help. *)

(* ####################################################### *)
(** * Summary *)

(** Let us summarize the main automation tactics available.

    - [auto] automatically applies [reflexivity], [assumption], and [apply]. 

    - [eauto] moreover tries [eapply], and in particular can instantiate
      existentials in the conclusion.

    - [iauto] extends [eauto] with support for negation, conjunctions, and 
      disjunctions. However, its support for disjunction can make it 
      exponentially slow.

    - [jauto] extends [eauto] with support for  negation, conjunctions, and 
      existential at the head of hypothesis.

    - [congruence] helps reasoning about equalities and inequalities.

    - [omega] proves arithmetic goals with equalities and inequalities,
      but it does not support multiplication.

    - [ring] proves arithmetic goals with multiplications, but does not
      support inequalities.
    
    In order to set up automation appropriately, keep in mind the following 
    rule of thumbs:

    - automation is all about balance: not enough automation makes proofs
      not very robust on change, whereas too much automation makes proofs
      very hard to fix when they break.
  
    - if a lemma is not goal directed (i.e., some of its variables do not
      occur in its conclusion), then the premises need to be ordered in
      such a way that proving the first premises maximizes the chances of
      correctly instantiating the variables that do not occur in the conclusion.

    - a lemma whose conclusion is [False] should only be added as a local
      hint, i.e., as a hint within the current section.
    
    - a transitivity lemma should never be considered as hint; if automation
      of transitivity reasoning is really necessary, an [Extern Hint] needs
      to be set up.

    - a definition usually needs to be accompanied with a [Hint Unfold].

    Becoming a master in the black art of automation certainly requires
    some investment, however this investment will pay off very quickly.
*)

(** $Date: 2014-12-31 11:17:56 -0500 (Wed, 31 Dec 2014) $ *)