The elaborator produces better proof terms. This is particularly important when we have to prove the remaining holes using tactics.
For example, in one of the tests, the elaborator was producing the sub-expression
(λ x : N, if ((λ x::1 : N, if (P a x x::1) ⊥ ⊤) == (λ x : N, ⊤)) ⊥ ⊤)
After, this commit it produces
(λ x : N, ¬ ∀ x::1 : N, ¬ P a x x::1)
The expressions above are definitionally equal, but the second is easier to work with.
Question: do we really need hidden definitions?
Perhaps, we can use only the opaque flag.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commit also includes a new test that exposes the problem.
The options in the io_state object were being lost.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The parser had a nasty ambiguity. For example,
f Type 1
had two possible interpretations
(f (Type) (1))
or
(f (Type 1))
To fix this issue, whenever we want to specify a particular universe, we have to precede 'Type' with a parenthesis.
Examples:
(Type 1)
(Type U)
(Type M + 1)
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The elaborator was missing solutions because of the missing condition at is_simple_ho_match.
This commit also adds a new test that exposes the problem.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commits also adds a new unit test that demonstrates non-termination due to this kind of constraint.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
The "quota" hack used before this commit was inefficient, and too hackish.
This commit uses two lists of constraints: active and delayed.
The delayed constraints are only processed when there are no active constraints.
We use a simple index to quickly find which delayed constraints have assigned metavariables.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
checkpoint
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commit also simplifies the method check_pi in the type_checker and type_inferer.
It also fixes process_meta_app in the elaborator.
The problem was in the method process_meta_app and process_meta_inst.
They were processing convertability constrains as equality constraints.
For example, process_meta_app would handle
ctx |- Type << ?f b
as
ctx |- Type =:= ?f b
This is not correct because a ?f that returns (Type U) for b satisfies the first but not the second.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
I also reduced the stack size to 8 Mb in the tests at tests/lean and tests/lean/slow. The idea is to simulate stackoverflow conditions.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commit fixes a problem exposed by t13.lean.
It has a theorem of the form:
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) : A /\ B -> B /\ A :=
fun assumption : A /\ B,
let lemma1 := (show A by auto),
lemma2 := (show B by auto)
in (show B /\ A by auto)
When to_goal creates a goal for the metavariable associated with (show B /\ A by auto) it receives a context and proposition of the form
[ A : Bool, B : Bool, assumption : A /\ B, lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption, lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption ] |- B /\ A
The context_entries "lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption" and "lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption" do not have a domain (aka type).
Before this commit, to_goal would simply replace and references to "lemma1" and "lemma2" in "B /\ A" with their definitions.
Note that, "B /\ A" does not contain references to "lemma1" and "lemma2". Then, the following goal is created
A : Bool, B : Bool, assumption : A /\ B |- B /\ A
That is, the lemmas are not available when solving B /\ A.
Thus, the tactic auto produced the following (weird) proof for T1, where the lemmas are computed but not used.
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) (assumption : A ∧ B) : B ∧ A :=
let lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption,
lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption
in Conj (Conjunct2 assumption) (Conjunct1 assumption)
This commit fixed that. It computes the types of "Conjunct1 assumption" and "Conjunct2 assumption", and creates the goal
A : Bool, B : Bool, assumption : A /\ B, lemma1 : A, lemma2 : B |- B /\ A
After this commit, the proof for theorem T1 is
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) (assumption : A ∧ B) : B ∧ A :=
let lemma1 := Conjunct1 assumption,
lemma2 := Conjunct2 assumption
in Conj lemma2 lemma1
as expected.
Finally, this example suggests that the encoding
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) : A /\ B -> B /\ A :=
fun assumption : A /\ B,
let lemma1 : A := (by auto),
lemma2 : B := (by auto)
in (show B /\ A by auto)
is more efficient than
Theorem T1 (A B : Bool) : A /\ B -> B /\ A :=
fun assumption : A /\ B,
let lemma1 := (show A by auto),
lemma2 := (show B by auto)
in (show B /\ A by auto)
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
This commit improves the condition for showing that an equality(and convertability) constraint cannot be solved. A nice consequence is that Lean produces nicer error messages. For example, the error message for unit test elab1.lean is more informative.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com>
