From f63e9358746f82de0dd07d60bdf82fdc0fae2101 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Enrico Tassi Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 16:33:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] better description of declarative tactics --- .../help/C/declarative_tactics_quickref.xml | 36 +- helm/software/matita/help/C/matita.xml | 3 +- .../matita/help/C/sec_declarative_tactics.xml | 599 ++++++++++-------- helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_terms.xml | 24 +- 4 files changed, 368 insertions(+), 294 deletions(-) diff --git a/helm/software/matita/help/C/declarative_tactics_quickref.xml b/helm/software/matita/help/C/declarative_tactics_quickref.xml index 8aba5a08c..002a7a376 100644 --- a/helm/software/matita/help/C/declarative_tactics_quickref.xml +++ b/helm/software/matita/help/C/declarative_tactics_quickref.xml @@ -5,66 +5,70 @@ &tactic; ::= - we need to prove term + assume id : sterm | - we proceed by induction on term to prove term + by induction hypothesis we know term ( id ) | - assume id : sterm + case id [( id : term )] … | - by term done + justification done | - by induction hypothesis we know term ( id ) + justification let id + : term such that term + ( id ) | - by term we proved term - ( id ) + [obtain id | conclude term] = term [auto_params | using term | using once term | proof] [done] | - case id ( id : term ) + suppose term ( id + ) [ that is equivalent to term ] | - by term let id - : term such that term - ( id ) + the thesis becomes term | - [obtain id | conclude term] = term [auto_params | exact term | using term | proof] [done] + we need to prove term + [(id + )] + [ or equivalently term] | - suppose term ( id - ) [ that is equivalent to term ] + we proceed by cases on term to prove term | - the thesis becomes sterm + we proceed by induction on term to prove term | - we proceed by cases on term to prove term + justification we proved term + ( id + ) diff --git a/helm/software/matita/help/C/matita.xml b/helm/software/matita/help/C/matita.xml index 1b4cba2aa..3f00c148f 100644 --- a/helm/software/matita/help/C/matita.xml +++ b/helm/software/matita/help/C/matita.xml @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ - + Matita"> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ qstring"> interpretation"> auto_params"> + justification"> simple_auto_param"> ]> diff --git a/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_declarative_tactics.xml b/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_declarative_tactics.xml index cc6aeb61d..bc0b424e0 100644 --- a/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_declarative_tactics.xml +++ b/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_declarative_tactics.xml @@ -51,199 +51,28 @@ - - suppose - suppose - suppose t(x) - - - - Synopsis: - - suppose &term; ( &id; - ) [ that is equivalent to &term; ] - - - - Pre-condition: - - &TODO; - - - - Action: - - &TODO; - - - - New sequents to prove: - - None. - - - - - - - - by done - by done - by [ t | _ ] done - - - - Synopsis: - - by &term; done - - - - Pre-condition: - - The term can be omitted with a "_", the running term will come found automatically. - - - - Action: - - It closes the current sequent by applying t, taht it can be one under proof or the main proof. - - - - New sequents to prove: - - None. - - - - - - - - we need to prove - we need to prove - we need to prove t [(id)] [or equivalent t] - - - - Synopsis: - - we need to prove &term; - - - - Pre-condition: - - &TODO; - - - - Action: - - &TODO; - - - - New sequents to prove: - - None. - - - - - - - - we proceed by induction - we proceed by induction - we proceed by induction on t to prove th - - - - Synopsis: - - we proceed by induction on &term; to prove &term; - - - - Pre-condition: - - t must inhabit an inductive type and th must be an elimination principle for that inductive type. - - - - Action: - - It proceed on the values of t. - - - - New sequents to prove: - - It opens one new sequent to demonstrate. - - - - - - - - we proceed by cases - we proceed by cases - we proceed by cases on t to prove t - - - - Synopsis: - - we proceed by cases on &term; to prove &term; - - - - Pre-condition: - - &TODO; - - - - Action: - - &TODO; - - - - New sequents to prove: - - None. - - - - - - - by induction - by induction + by induction hypothesis we know + by induction hypothesis we know by induction hypothesis we know t (id) Synopsis: - - by induction hypothesis we know &term; ( &id; ) + by induction hypothesis we know &term; ( &id; ) Pre-condition: - &TODO; + To be used in a proof by induction to state the inductive + hypothesis. Action: - &TODO; + Introduces the inductive hypothesis. @@ -256,192 +85,291 @@ - - thesis becomes - thesis becomes - the thesis becomes t - - - - Synopsis: - - the thesis becomes &sterm; - - - - Pre-condition: - - Each subterm must be convertible with the term t disambiguate in the context of the matched subterm. - - - - Action: - - It replaces the subterm of the current sequent with the new term - - - - New sequence to prove: - - None. - - - - - - case case - case id (id:t)list + case id (id1:t1) … (idn:tn) Synopsis: - case &id; ( &id; : &term; ) + case &id; [( &id; : &term; )] … Pre-condition: - &TODO; + To be used in a proof by induction or by cases to start + a new case Action: - &TODO; + Starts the new case id declaring + the local parameters (id1:t1) … (idn:tn) New sequents to prove: - &TODO; + None + + done + done + justification done + + + + Synopsis: + + &justification; done + + + + Pre-condition: + + + + + + Action: + + It closes the current sequent given the justification. + + + + New sequents to prove: + + None. + + + + + + + + + let such that + let such that + justification let x:t such that p (id) + + + + + Synopsis: + + &justification; let &id; + : &term; such that &term; + ( &id; ) + + + + Pre-condition: + + + + + + + Action: + + It derives ∃x:t.p using the + justification and then it introduces in the context + x and the hypothesis + p labelled with + id. + + + + + New sequent to prove: + + None. + + + + + + - obtain/conclude - obtain/conclude - obtain H t=t [auto_params | exact t| proof | using t] done + obtain + obtain + obtain H t1 = t2 justification Synopsis: - [obtain &id; | conclude &term;] = &term; [&autoparams; | exact &term; | using &term; | proof] [done] + [obtain &id; | conclude &term;] = &term; [&autoparams; | using &term; | using once &term; | proof] [done] Pre-condition: - &TODO; - + conclude can be used only if the current + sequent is stating an equality. The left hand side must be omitted + in an equality chain. + Action: - &TODO; + Starts or continues an equality chain. If the chain starts + with obtain H a new subproof named + H is started. - New sequence to prove: + New sequent to prove: - &TODO; + If the chain starts + with obtain H a nre sequent for + t2 = ? is opened. + - - by term we proved - by term we proved - by th we proved t [""|(id)] + + suppose + suppose + suppose t1 (x) that is equivalent to t2 + + + + Synopsis: + + suppose &term; ( &id; + ) [ that is equivalent to &term; ] + + + + Pre-condition: + + The conclusion of the current proof must be + ∀x:T.P or + T→P where T is + a proposition (i.e. T has type + Prop or CProp). + + + + Action: + + It adds to the context of the current sequent to prove a new + declaration x : T . The new conclusion becomes + P. + + + + New sequents to prove: + + None. + + + + + + + + the thesis becomes + the thesis becomes + the thesis becomes t - - - Synopsis: - - by &term; we proved &term; - ( &id; ) - + + + Synopsis: + + the thesis becomes &term; + Pre-condition: - thmust have type Prop. - idcan to be omitted with null + The provided term t must be convertible with + current sequent. Action: - It closes the current sequent by applyingth to t. + It changes the current goal to the one provided. - New sequence to prove: + New sequent to prove: - &TODO; + None. - - - - exits elim - exits elim - by t let id:t such that t (id) + + + + we need to prove + we need to prove + we need to prove t1 (id) or equivalently t2 Synopsis: - by &term; let &id; - : &term; such that &term; - ( &id; ) - - - - Pre-condition: - - t must be an inductive type,existential and - t (id) must be an elimanation priciple for that inductive type. - - - - - Action: - - it proceeds on t to the elimination of the existential one + we need to prove &term; + [(&id; + )] + [ or equivalently &term;] - - New sequence to prove: + + Pre-condition: - It opens one new sequent. The names of the new hypotheses are picked byt (id) + - + + + Action: + + If id is provided, starts a subproof that once concluded + will be named id. Otherwise states what needs to be proved. + If t2 is provided, the new goal is + immediately changed to t2 wich must + be equivalent to t1. + + + + + New sequents to prove: + + The stated one if id is provided + + + - and elim - and elim - by t we have t (id) and t (id) + we have + we have + justification we have t1 (id1) and t2 (id2) + Synopsis: - by &term; we have &term; + &justification; we have &term; ( &id; ) and &term; ( &id; ) @@ -449,23 +377,142 @@ Pre-condition: - t must be an logical type,type and + Action: - It proceeds on the values of t, according to the elimination principle + It derives t1∧t2 using the + justification then it introduces in the context + t1 labelled with id1 and + t2 labelled with id2. + - New sequence to prove: + New sequent to prove: - It opens one new sequent, the names of the new hypotheses are picked by t(id) and t(id) + None. + + we proceed by cases on + we proceed by cases on + we proceed by cases on t to prove th + + + + Synopsis: + + we proceed by cases on &term; to prove &term; + + + + Pre-condition: + + t must inhabitant of an inductive type and + th must be the conclusion to be proved by + cases. + + + + Action: + + It proceeds by cases on t + + + + New sequents to prove: + + It opens one new sequent for each constructor of the + type of t. + + + + + + + + we proceed by induction on + we proceed by induction on + we proceed by induction on t to prove th + + + + Synopsis: + + we proceed by induction on &term; to prove &term; + + + + Pre-condition: + + t must inhabitant of an inductive type and + th must be the conclusion to be proved by induction. + + + + + Action: + + It proceed by induction on t. + + + + New sequents to prove: + + It opens one new sequent for each constructor of the + type of t. + + + + + + + + + we proved + we proved + justification we proved t (id) + + + + Synopsis: + + &justification; we proved &term; + ( &id; + ) + + + + Pre-condition: + + tmust have type Prop. + + + + + Action: + + It derives t + using the justification and labels the conclusion with + id. + + + + + New sequent to prove: + + None. + + + + + + diff --git a/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_terms.xml b/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_terms.xml index 6f247d04a..dbf1718f8 100644 --- a/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_terms.xml +++ b/helm/software/matita/help/C/sec_terms.xml @@ -727,7 +727,6 @@ auto-params - &TODO; auto-params @@ -791,6 +790,29 @@
+ + + justification + + justification + + + + &justification; + ::= + using &term; + Proof term manually provided + + + + | + &autoparams; + Call automation + + + +
+
-- 2.39.2