CODEWITHSUNDEEP
coq
Marko Grdinić
Marko Grdinić

Reputation: 4062

What should be done when simpl does not reduce all the necessary steps?

The following example is from chapter Poly of the Software Foundations book.

Definition fold_length {X : Type} (l : list X) : nat :=
  fold (fun _ n => S n) l 0.

Theorem fold_length_correct : forall X (l : list X),
  fold_length l = length l.
Proof.
intros.
induction l.
- simpl. reflexivity.
- simpl.

1 subgoal
X : Type
x : X
l : list X
IHl : fold_length l = length l
______________________________________(1/1)
fold_length (x :: l) = S (length l)

I expected it to simplify a step here on the left side. It certainly should be able to.

Theorem fold_length_correct : forall X (l : list X),
  fold_length l = length l.
Proof.
intros.
induction l.
- simpl. reflexivity.
- simpl. rewrite <- IHl. simpl.

1 subgoal
X : Type
x : X
l : list X
IHl : fold_length l = length l
______________________________________(1/1)
fold_length (x :: l) = S (fold_length l)

During the running of the tests I had an issue where simpl would refuse to dive in, but reflexivity did the trick, so I tried the same thing here and the proof succeeded.

Note that one would not expect reflexivity to pass given the state of the goal, but it does. In this example it worked, but it did force me to do the rewrite in the opposite direction of what I intended originally.

Is it possible to have more control over simpl so that it does the desired reductions?

Upvotes: 2

Views: 731

Answers (1)

SCappella
SCappella

Reputation: 10424

For the purposes of this answer, I'll assume the definition of fold is something along the lines of

Fixpoint fold {A B: Type} (f: A -> B -> B) (u: list A) (b: B): B :=
match u with
| [] => b
| x :: v => f x (fold f v b)
end.

(basically fold_right from the standard library). If your definition is substantially different, the tactics I recommend might not work.

The issue here is the behavior of simpl with constants that have to be unfolded before they can be simplified. From the documentation:

Notice that only transparent constants whose name can be reused in the recursive calls are possibly unfolded by simpl. For instance a constant defined by plus' := plus is possibly unfolded and reused in the recursive calls, but a constant such as succ := plus (S O) is never unfolded.

This is a bit hard to understand, so let's use an example.

Definition add_5 (n: nat) := n + 5.

Goal forall n: nat, add_5 (S n) = S (add_5 n).
Proof.
  intro n.
  simpl.
  unfold add_5; simpl.
  exact eq_refl.
Qed.

You'll see that the first call to simpl didn't do anything, even though add_5 (S n) could be simplified to S (n + 5). However, if I unfold add_5 first, it works perfectly. I think the issue is that plus_5 is not directly a Fixpoint. While plus_5 (S n) is equivalent to S (plus_5 n), that isn't actually the definition of it. So Coq doesn't recognize that its "name can be reused in the recursive calls". Nat.add (that is, "+") is defined directly as a recursive Fixpoint, so simpl does simplify it.

The behavior of simpl can be changed a little bit (see the documentation again). As Anton mentions in the comments, you can use the Arguments vernacular command to change when simpl tries to simplify. Arguments fold_length _ _ /. tells Coq that fold_length should be unfolded if at least two arguments are provided (the slash separates between the required arguments on the left and the unnecessary arguments on the right).[sup]1[\sup]

A simpler tactic to use if you don't want to deal with that is cbn which works here by default and works better in general. Quoting from the documentation:

The cbn tactic is claimed to be a more principled, faster and more predictable replacement for simpl.

Neither simpl with Arguments and a slash nor cbn reduce the goal to quite what you want in your case, since it'll unfold fold_length but not refold it. You could recognize that the call to fold is just fold_length l and refold it with fold (fold_length l).

Another possibility in your case is to use the change tactic. It seemed like you knew already that fold_length (a :: l) was supposed to simplify to S (fold_length l). If that's the case, you could use change (fold_length (a :: l)) with (S (fold_length l)). and Coq will try to convert one into the other (using only the basic conversion rules, not equalities like rewrite does).

After you've gotten the goal to S (fold_length l) = S (length l) using either of the above tactics, you can use rewrite -> IHl. like you wanted to.

  1. I thought the slashes only made simpl unfold things less, which is why I didn't mention it before. I'm not sure what the default actually is, since putting the slash anywhere seems to make simpl unfold fold_length.

Upvotes: 5

Related Questions