Tactics — Coq 8.8.0 documentation

\[ \newcommand{\alors}{\textsf{then}} \newcommand{\alter}{\textsf{alter}} \newcommand{\as}{\kw{as}} \newcommand{\Assum}[3]{\kw{Assum}(#1)(#2:#3)} \newcommand{\bool}{\textsf{bool}} \newcommand{\case}{\kw{case}} \newcommand{\conc}{\textsf{conc}} \newcommand{\cons}{\textsf{cons}} \newcommand{\consf}{\textsf{consf}} \newcommand{\conshl}{\textsf{cons\_hl}} \newcommand{\Def}[4]{\kw{Def}(#1)(#2:=#3:#4)} \newcommand{\emptyf}{\textsf{emptyf}} \newcommand{\End}{\kw{End}} \newcommand{\endkw}{\kw{end}} \newcommand{\EqSt}{\textsf{EqSt}} \newcommand{\even}{\textsf{even}} \newcommand{\evenO}{\textsf{even_O}} \newcommand{\evenS}{\textsf{even_S}} \newcommand{\false}{\textsf{false}} \newcommand{\filter}{\textsf{filter}} \newcommand{\Fix}{\kw{Fix}} \newcommand{\fix}{\kw{fix}} \newcommand{\for}{\textsf{for}} \newcommand{\forest}{\textsf{forest}} \newcommand{\from}{\textsf{from}} \newcommand{\Functor}{\kw{Functor}} \newcommand{\haslength}{\textsf{has\_length}} \newcommand{\hd}{\textsf{hd}} \newcommand{\ident}{\textsf{ident}} \newcommand{\In}{\kw{in}} \newcommand{\Ind}[4]{\kw{Ind}[#2](#3:=#4)} \newcommand{\ind}[3]{\kw{Ind}~[#1]\left(#2\mathrm{~:=~}#3\right)} \newcommand{\Indp}[5]{\kw{Ind}_{#5}(#1)[#2](#3:=#4)} \newcommand{\Indpstr}[6]{\kw{Ind}_{#5}(#1)[#2](#3:=#4)/{#6}} \newcommand{\injective}{\kw{injective}} \newcommand{\kw}[1]{\textsf{#1}} \newcommand{\lb}{\lambda} \newcommand{\length}{\textsf{length}} \newcommand{\letin}[3]{\kw{let}~#1:=#2~\kw{in}~#3} \newcommand{\List}{\textsf{list}} \newcommand{\lra}{\longrightarrow} \newcommand{\Match}{\kw{match}} \newcommand{\Mod}[3]{{\kw{Mod}}({#1}:{#2}\,\zeroone{:={#3}})} \newcommand{\ModA}[2]{{\kw{ModA}}({#1}=={#2})} \newcommand{\ModS}[2]{{\kw{Mod}}({#1}:{#2})} \newcommand{\ModType}[2]{{\kw{ModType}}({#1}:={#2})} \newcommand{\mto}{.\;} \newcommand{\Nat}{\mathbb{N}} \newcommand{\nat}{\textsf{nat}} \newcommand{\Nil}{\textsf{nil}} \newcommand{\nilhl}{\textsf{nil\_hl}} \newcommand{\nO}{\textsf{O}} \newcommand{\node}{\textsf{node}} \newcommand{\nS}{\textsf{S}} \newcommand{\odd}{\textsf{odd}} \newcommand{\oddS}{\textsf{odd_S}} \newcommand{\ovl}[1]{\overline{#1}} \newcommand{\Pair}{\textsf{pair}} \newcommand{\Prod}{\textsf{prod}} \newcommand{\Prop}{\textsf{Prop}} \newcommand{\return}{\kw{return}} \newcommand{\Set}{\textsf{Set}} \newcommand{\si}{\textsf{if}} \newcommand{\sinon}{\textsf{else}} \newcommand{\Sort}{\cal S} \newcommand{\Str}{\textsf{Stream}} \newcommand{\Struct}{\kw{Struct}} \newcommand{\subst}[3]{#1\{#2/#3\}} \newcommand{\tl}{\textsf{tl}} \newcommand{\tree}{\textsf{tree}} \newcommand{\true}{\textsf{true}} \newcommand{\Type}{\textsf{Type}} \newcommand{\unfold}{\textsf{unfold}} \newcommand{\WEV}[3]{\mbox{$#1[] \vdash #2 \lra #3$}} \newcommand{\WEVT}[3]{\mbox{$#1[] \vdash #2 \lra$}\\ \mbox{$ #3$}} \newcommand{\WF}[2]{{\cal W\!F}(#1)[#2]} \newcommand{\WFE}[1]{\WF{E}{#1}} \newcommand{\WFT}[2]{#1[] \vdash {\cal W\!F}(#2)} \newcommand{\WFTWOLINES}[2]{{\cal W\!F}\begin{array}{l}(#1)\\\mbox{}[{#2}]\end{array}} \newcommand{\with}{\kw{with}} \newcommand{\WS}[3]{#1[] \vdash #2 <: #3} \newcommand{\WSE}[2]{\WS{E}{#1}{#2}} \newcommand{\WT}[4]{#1[#2] \vdash #3 : #4} \newcommand{\WTE}[3]{\WT{E}{#1}{#2}{#3}} \newcommand{\WTEG}[2]{\WTE{\Gamma}{#1}{#2}} \newcommand{\WTM}[3]{\WT{#1}{}{#2}{#3}} \newcommand{\zeroone}[1]{[{#1}]} \newcommand{\zeros}{\textsf{zeros}} \]

# Tactics

A deduction rule is a link between some (unique) formula, that we call the conclusion and (several) formulas that we call the premises. A deduction rule can be read in two ways. The first one says: “if I know this and this then I can deduce this”. For instance, if I have a proof of A and a proof of B then I have a proof of A ∧ B. This is forward reasoning from premises to conclusion. The other way says: “to prove this I have to prove this and this”. For instance, to prove A ∧ B, I have to prove A and I have to prove B. This is backward reasoning from conclusion to premises. We say that the conclusion is the goal to prove and premises are the subgoals. The tactics implement backward reasoning. When applied to a goal, a tactic replaces this goal with the subgoals it generates. We say that a tactic reduces a goal to its subgoal(s).

Each (sub)goal is denoted with a number. The current goal is numbered 1. By default, a tactic is applied to the current goal, but one can address a particular goal in the list by writing n:tactic which means “apply tactic tactic to goal number n”. We can show the list of subgoals by typing Show (see Section Requesting information).

Since not every rule applies to a given statement, every tactic cannot be used to reduce any goal. In other words, before applying a tactic to a given goal, the system checks that some preconditions are satisfied. If it is not the case, the tactic raises an error message.

Tactics are built from atomic tactics and tactic expressions (which extends the folklore notion of tactical) to combine those atomic tactics. This chapter is devoted to atomic tactics. The tactic language will be described in Chapter The tactic language.

## Invocation of tactics

A tactic is applied as an ordinary command. It may be preceded by a goal selector (see Section Semantics). If no selector is specified, the default selector is used.

>     tactic_invocation ::=  toplevel_selector : tactic.
>                            |tactic .

Option `Default Goal Selector toplevel_selector`

  This option controls the default selector – used when no selector is specified when applying a tactic – is set to the chosen value. The initial value is 1, hence the tactics are, by default, applied to the first goal. Using value `all` will make is so that tactics are, by default, applied to every goal simultaneously. Then, to apply a tactic tac to the first goal only, you can write `1:tac`. Although more selectors are available, only `all` or a single natural number are valid default goal selectors.

### Bindings list

Tactics that take a term as argument may also support a bindings list, so as to instantiate some parameters of the term by name or position. The general form of a term equipped with a bindings list is `term with bindings_list` where `bindings_list` may be of two different forms:

>     bindings_list ::=  (ref := term) ... (ref := term)
>                        term ... term

- In a bindings list of the form `(ref:= term)*`, `ref` is either an `ident` or a `num`. The references are determined according to the type of `term`. If `ref` is an identifier, this identifier has to be bound in the type of `term` and the binding provides the tactic with an instance for the parameter of this name. If `ref` is some number `n`, this number denotes the `n`-th non dependent premise of the `term`, as determined by the type of `term`.

  Error `No such binder`

- A bindings list can also be a simple list of terms `term*`. In that case the references to which these terms correspond are determined by the tactic. In case of `induction`, `destruct`, `elim` and `case` (see The tactic language) the terms have to provide instances for all the dependent products in the type of term while in the case of `apply`, or of `constructor` and its variants, only instances for the dependent products that are not bound in the conclusion of the type are required.

  Error `Not the right number of missing arguments.`

### Occurrences sets and occurrences clauses

An occurrences clause is a modifier to some tactics that obeys the following syntax:

>     occurence_clause ::=  in goal_occurences
>     goal_occurences  ::=  [ident [at_occurences], ... , ident [at_occurences] [|- [* [at_occurences]]]]
>                          | * |- [* [at_occurences]]
>                          | *
>     at_occurrences   ::=  at occurrences
>     occurences       ::=  [-] num ... num

The role of an occurrence clause is to select a set of occurrences of a term in a goal. In the first case, the `ident at num*?` parts indicate that occurrences have to be selected in the hypotheses named `ident`. If no numbers are given for hypothesis `ident`, then all the occurrences of term in the hypothesis are selected. If numbers are given, they refer to occurrences of term when the term is printed using option `Printing All`, counting from left to right. In particular, occurrences of term in implicit arguments (see Implicit arguments) or coercions (see Coercions) are counted.

If a minus sign is given between at and the list of occurrences, it negates the condition so that the clause denotes all the occurrences except the ones explicitly mentioned after the minus sign.

As an exception to the left-to-right order, the occurrences in thereturn subexpression of a match are considered before the occurrences in the matched term.

In the second case, the `*` on the left of `|-` means that all occurrences of term are selected in every hypothesis.

In the first and second case, if `*` is mentioned on the right of `|-`, the occurrences of the conclusion of the goal have to be selected. If some numbers are given, then only the occurrences denoted by these numbers are selected. If no numbers are given, all occurrences of `term` in the goal are selected.

Finally, the last notation is an abbreviation for `* |- *`. Note also that `|-` is optional in the first case when no `*` is given.

Here are some tactics that understand occurrences clauses: `set`, `remember` , `induction`, `destruct`.

See also: Managing the local context, Case analysis and induction, Printing constructions in full.

## Applying theorems

`exact term`

This tactic applies to any goal. It gives directly the exact proof term of the goal. Let `T` be our goal, let `p` be a term of type `U` then `exact p` succeeds iff `T` and `U` are convertible (see Conversion rules).

Error `Not an exact proof.`

Variant `eexact term.`

This tactic behaves like exact but is able to handle terms and goals with meta-variables.

`assumption`

This tactic looks in the local context for an hypothesis which type is equal to the goal. If it is the case, the subgoal is proved. Otherwise, it fails.

Error `No such assumption.`

Variant `eassumption`

This tactic behaves like assumption but is able to handle goals with meta-variables.

`refine term`

This tactic applies to any goal. It behaves like exact with a big difference: the user can leave some holes (denoted by `_` or``(_:type)``) in the term. refine will generate as many subgoals as there are holes in the term. The type of holes must be either synthesized by the system or declared by an explicit cast like `(_:nat->Prop)`. Any subgoal that occurs in other subgoals is automatically shelved, as if calling shelve_unifiable (see Section 8.17.4). This low-level tactic can be useful to advanced users.

Example

Inductive Option : Set := | Fail : Option | Ok : bool -> Option.
  Option is defined Option_rect is defined Option_ind is defined Option_rec is defined
Definition get : forall x: Option, x <> Fail -> bool.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall x : Option, x <> Fail -> bool
refine (fun x: Option => match x return x <> Fail -> bool with | Fail => _ | Ok b => fun _ => b end).
  1 subgoal x : Option ============================ Fail <> Fail -> bool
intros; absurd (Fail = Fail); trivial.
  No more subgoals.
Defined.
  get is defined

Error `invalid argument`

  The tactic `refine` does not know what to do with the term you gave.

Error `Refine passed ill-formed term`

  The term you gave is not a valid proof (not easy to debug in general). This message may also occur in higher-level tactics that call `refine` internally.

Error `Cannot infer a term for this placeholder`

  There is a hole in the term you gave which type cannot be inferred. Put a cast around it.

Variant `simple refine term`

  This tactic behaves like refine, but it does not shelve any subgoal. It does not perform any beta-reduction either.

Variant `notypeclasses refine term`

  This tactic behaves like `refine` except it performs typechecking without resolution of typeclasses.

Variant `simple notypeclasses refine term`

  This tactic behaves like `simple refine` except it performs typechecking without resolution of typeclasses.

Variant `apply term`

This tactic applies to any goal. The argument term is a term well-formed in the local context. The tactic apply tries to match the current goal against the conclusion of the type of term. If it succeeds, then the tactic returns as many subgoals as the number of non-dependent premises of the type of term. If the conclusion of the type of term does not match the goal and the conclusion is an inductive type isomorphic to a tuple type, then each component of the tuple is recursively matched to the goal in the left-to-right order.

The tactic `apply` relies on first-order unification with dependent types unless the conclusion of the type of `term` is of the form `P (t`1 `…` `t`n `)` with P to be instantiated. In the latter case, the behavior depends on the form of the goal. If the goal is of the form `(fun x => Q) u`1 `…` `u`n and the `t`i and `u`i unifies, then `P` is taken to be `(fun x => Q)`. Otherwise, `apply` tries to define `P` by abstracting over `t`1 `…` `t`n in the goal. See `pattern` to transform the goal so that it gets the form `(fun x => Q) u`1 `…` `u`n.

Error `Unable to unify … with … .`

The apply tactic failed to match the conclusion of term and the current goal. You can help the apply tactic by transforming your goal with the `change` or `pattern` tactics.

Error `Unable to find an instance for the variables ident+.`

This occurs when some instantiations of the premises of term are not deducible from the unification. This is the case, for instance, when you want to apply a transitivity property. In this case, you have to use one of the variants below:

Variant `apply term with term+`

Provides apply with explicit instantiations for all dependent premises of the type of term that do not occur in the conclusion and consequently cannot be found by unification. Notice that the collection `term+` must be given according to the order of these dependent premises of the type of term.

Error `Not the right number of missing arguments.`

Variant `apply term with bindings_list`

This also provides apply with values for instantiating premises. Here, variables are referred by names and non-dependent products by increasing numbers (see bindings list).

Variant `apply term+,`

This is a shortcut for `apply term`1 `; [.. | ... ; [ .. | apply` `term`n `] ... ]`, i.e. for the successive applications of `term`i+1 on the last subgoal generated by `apply term`i , starting from the application of `term`1.

Variant `eapply term`

The tactic `eapply` behaves like `apply` but it does not fail when no instantiations are deducible for some variables in the premises. Rather, it turns these variables into existential variables which are variables still to instantiate (see Existential variables). The instantiation is intended to be found later in the proof.

Variant `simple apply term.`

This behaves like `apply` but it reasons modulo conversion only on subterms that contain no variables to instantiate. For instance, the following example does not succeed because it would require the conversion of `id ?foo` and `O`.

Example

Definition id (x : nat) := x.
  id is defined
Hypothesis H : forall y, id y = y.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-34: > Hypothesis H : forall y, id y = y. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: H is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] H is declared
Goal O = O.
  1 subgoal ============================ 0 = 0
Fail simple apply H.
  The command has indeed failed with message: Unable to unify “id ?M160 = ?M160” with “0 = 0”.

Because it reasons modulo a limited amount of conversion, `simple apply` fails quicker than `apply` and it is then well-suited for uses in user-defined tactics that backtrack often. Moreover, it does not traverse tuples as `apply` does.

Variant `simple? apply term with bindings_list?+,`

Variant `simple? eapply term with bindings_list?+,`

This summarizes the different syntaxes for `apply` and `eapply`.

Variant `lapply term`

This tactic applies to any goal, say `G`. The argument term has to be well-formed in the current context, its type being reducible to a non-dependent product `A -> B` with `B` possibly containing products. Then it generates two subgoals `B->G` and `A`. Applying `lapply H` (where `H` has type `A->B` and `B` does not start with a product) does the same as giving the sequence `cut B. 2:apply H.` where `cut` is described below.

Warning `When term contains more than one non dependent product the tactic lapply only takes into account the first product.`

Example

Assume we have a transitive relation `R` on `nat`:

Variable R : nat -> nat -> Prop.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-32: > Variable R : nat -> nat -> Prop. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: R is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] R is declared
Hypothesis Rtrans : forall x y z: nat, R x y -> R y z -> R x z.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-62: > Hypothesis Rtrans : forall x y z:nat, R x y -> R y z -> R x z. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: Rtrans is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] Rtrans is declared
Variables n m p : nat.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-22: > Variables n m p : nat. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: n is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] n is declared Toplevel input, characters 0-22: > Variables n m p : nat. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: m is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] m is declared Toplevel input, characters 0-22: > Variables n m p : nat. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: p is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] p is declared
Hypothesis Rnm : R n m.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-23: > Hypothesis Rnm : R n m. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: Rnm is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] Rnm is declared
Hypothesis Rmp : R m p.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-23: > Hypothesis Rmp : R m p. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: Rmp is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] Rmp is declared

Consider the goal `(R n p)` provable using the transitivity of `R`:

Goal R n p.
  1 subgoal ============================ R n p

The direct application of `Rtrans` with `apply` fails because no value for `y` in `Rtrans` is found by `apply`:

Fail apply Rtrans.
  The command has indeed failed with message: Unable to find an instance for the variable y.

A solution is to `apply (Rtrans n m p)` or `(Rtrans n m)`.

apply (Rtrans n m p).
  2 subgoals ============================ R n m subgoal 2 is: R m p

Note that `n` can be inferred from the goal, so the following would work too.

apply (Rtrans _ m).
  2 subgoals ============================ R n m subgoal 2 is: R m p

More elegantly, `apply Rtrans with (y:=m)` allows only mentioning the unknown m:

apply Rtrans with (y := m).
  2 subgoals ============================ R n m subgoal 2 is: R m p

Another solution is to mention the proof of `(R x y)` in `Rtrans`

apply Rtrans with (1 := Rnm).
  1 subgoal ============================ R m p

… or the proof of `(R y z)`.

apply Rtrans with (2 := Rmp).
  1 subgoal ============================ R n m

On the opposite, one can use `eapply` which postpones the problem of finding `m`. Then one can apply the hypotheses `Rnm` and `Rmp`. This instantiates the existential variable and completes the proof.

eapply Rtrans.
  2 focused subgoals (shelved: 1) ============================ R n ?y subgoal 2 is: R ?y p
apply Rnm.
  1 subgoal ============================ R m p
apply Rmp.
  No more subgoals.

Note

When the conclusion of the type of the term to `apply` is an inductive type isomorphic to a tuple type and `apply` looks recursively whether a component of the tuple matches the goal, it excludes components whose statement would result in applying an universal lemma of the form `forall A, ... -> A`. Excluding this kind of lemma can be avoided by setting the following option:

Option `Universal Lemma Under Conjunction`

  This option, which preserves compatibility with versions of Coq prior to 8.4 is also available for `apply term in ident` (see `apply ... in`).

`apply term in ident`

  This tactic applies to any goal. The argument `term` is a term well-formed in the local context and the argument `ident` is an hypothesis of the context. The tactic `apply term in ident` tries to match the conclusion of the type of `ident` against a non-dependent premise of the type of `term`, trying them from right to left. If it succeeds, the statement of hypothesis `ident` is replaced by the conclusion of the type of `term`. The tactic also returns as many subgoals as the number of other non-dependent premises in the type of `term` and of the non-dependent premises of the type of `ident`. If the conclusion of the type of `term` does not match the goal and the conclusion is an inductive type isomorphic to a tuple type, then the tuple is (recursively) decomposed and the first component of the tuple of which a non-dependent premise matches the conclusion of the type of `ident`. Tuples are decomposed in a width-first left-to-right order (for instance if the type of `H1` is a `A <-> B` statement, and the type of `H2` is `A` then `apply H1 in H2` transforms the type of `H2` into `B`). The tactic `apply` relies on first-order pattern-matching with dependent types.

Error `Statement without assumptions.`

  This happens if the type of `term` has no non dependent premise.

Error `Unable to apply.`

  This happens if the conclusion of `ident` does not match any of the non dependent premises of the type of `term`.

Variant `apply term+, in ident`

  This applies each of `term` in sequence in `ident`.

Variant `apply term with bindings_list+, in ident`

  This does the same but uses the bindings in each `(id := @ val)` to instantiate the parameters of the corresponding type of `term` (see bindings list).

Variant `eapply term with bindings_list+, in ident`

  This works as `apply ... in` but turns unresolved bindings into existential variables, if any, instead of failing.

Variant `apply term with bindings_list+, in ident as intro_pattern`

  This works as `apply ... in` then applies the `intro_pattern` to the hypothesis `ident`.

Variant `eapply term with bindings_list+, in ident as intro_pattern.`

  This works as `apply ... in as` but using `eapply`.

Variant `simple apply term in ident`

  This behaves like `apply ... in` but it reasons modulo conversion only on subterms that contain no variables to instantiate. For instance, if `id := fun x:nat => x` and `H: forall y, id y = y -> True` and `H0 : O = O` then `simple apply H in H0` does not succeed because it would require the conversion of `id ?1234` and `O` where `?1234` is a variable to instantiate. Tactic `simple apply term in ident` does not either traverse tuples as `apply term in ident` does.

Variant `simple? apply term with bindings_list?+, in ident as intro_pattern?`

Variant `simple? eapply term with bindings_list?+, in ident as intro_pattern?`

  This summarizes the different syntactic variants of `apply term in ident` and `eapply term in ident`.

`constructor num`

  This tactic applies to a goal such that its conclusion is an inductive type (say `I`). The argument `num` must be less or equal to the numbers of constructor(s) of `I`. Let `c`i be the i-th constructor of `I`, then `constructor i` is equivalent to `intros; apply c`i.

Error `Not an inductive product`

Error `Not enough constructors`

Variant `constructor`

  This tries `constructor`1 then `constructor`2, …, then `constructor`n where n is the number of constructors of the head of the goal.

Variant `constructor num with bindings_list`

  > Let `c` be the i-th constructor of `I`, then `constructor i with bindings_list` is equivalent to `intros; apply c with bindings_list`.

  Warning `The terms in the bindings_list are checked in the context where constructor is executed and not in the context where apply is executed (the introductions are not taken into account).`

Variant `split`

  This applies only if `I` has a single constructor. It is then equivalent to `constructor 1.`. It is typically used in the case of a conjunction `A` \(\wedge\) `B`.

Error `Not an inductive goal with 1 constructor`

Variant `exists val`

  This applies only if `I` has a single constructor. It is then equivalent to `intros; constructor 1 with bindings_list.` It is typically used in the case of an existential quantification \(\exists\)`x, P(x).`

Error `Not an inductive goal with 1 constructor`

Variant `exists bindings_list`

  This iteratively applies `exists bindings_list`.

Variant `left`

Variant `right`

  These tactics apply only if `I` has two constructors, for instance in the case of a disjunction `A` \(\vee\) `B`. Then, they are respectively equivalent to `constructor 1` and `constructor 2`.

Error `Not an inductive goal with 2 constructors`

Variant `left with bindings_list`

Variant `right with bindings_list`

Variant `split with bindings_list`

  As soon as the inductive type has the right number of constructors, these expressions are equivalent to calling `constructor i with bindings_list` for the appropriate `i`.

Variant `econstructor`

Variant `eexists`

Variant `esplit`

Variant `eleft`

Variant `eright`

  These tactics and their variants behave like `constructor`, `exists`, `split`, `left`, `right` and their variants but they introduce existential variables instead of failing when the instantiation of a variable cannot be found (cf. `eapply` and `apply`).

## Managing the local context

`intro`

This tactic applies to a goal that is either a product or starts with a let binder. If the goal is a product, the tactic implements the “Lam” rule given in Typing rules [1]. If the goal starts with a let binder, then the tactic implements a mix of the “Let” and “Conv”.

If the current goal is a dependent product \(\forall\) `x:T, U` (resp `let x:=t in U`) then `intro` puts `x:T` (resp `x:=t`) in the local context. The new subgoal is `U`.

If the goal is a non-dependent product `T`\(\rightarrow\)`U`, then it puts in the local context either `Hn:T` (if `T` is of type `Set` or `Prop`) or Xn:T (if the type of `T` is `Type`). The optional index `n` is such that `Hn` or `Xn` is a fresh identifier. In both cases, the new subgoal is `U`.

If the goal is neither a product nor starting with a let definition, the tactic `intro` applies the tactic `hnf` until the tactic `intro` can be applied or the goal is not head-reducible.

Error `No product even after head-reduction.`

Error `ident is already used.`

Variant `intros`

  This repeats `intro` until it meets the head-constant. It never reduces head-constants and it never fails.

`intro @ident`

  This applies `intro` but forces `ident` to be the name of the introduced hypothesis.

Error `name ident is already used`

Note

If a name used by intro hides the base name of a global constant then the latter can still be referred to by a qualified name (see Qualified names).

Variant `intros ident+.`

  This is equivalent to the composed tactic `intro ident; … ; intro ident`. More generally, the `intros` tactic takes a pattern as argument in order to introduce names for components of an inductive definition or to clear introduced hypotheses. This is explained in Managing the local context.

Variant `intros until ident`

  This repeats intro until it meets a premise of the goal having form (@ident:term) and discharges the variable named ident of the current goal.

Error `No such hypothesis in current goal`

Variant `intros until num`

  This repeats intro until the num-th non-dependent product. For instance, on the subgoal `forall x y:nat, x=y -> y=x` the tactic `intros until 1` is equivalent to `intros x y H`, as `x=y -> y=x` is the first non-dependent product. And on the subgoal `forall x y z:nat, x=y -> y=x` the tactic `intros until 1` is equivalent to `intros x y z` as the product on `z` can be rewritten as a non-dependent product: `forall x y:nat, nat -> x=y -> y=x`

Error `No such hypothesis in current goal.`

  This happens when num is 0 or is greater than the number of non-dependent products of the goal.

Variant `intro after ident`

Variant `intro before ident`

Variant `intro at top`

Variant `intro at bottom`

  These tactics apply `intro` and move the freshly introduced hypothesis respectively after the hypothesis `ident`, before the hypothesis `ident`, at the top of the local context, or at the bottom of the local context. All hypotheses on which the new hypothesis depends are moved too so as to respect the order of dependencies between hypotheses. Note that `intro at bottom` is a synonym for `intro` with no argument.

Error `No such hypothesis : ident.`

Variant `intro ident after ident`

Variant `intro ident before ident`

Variant `intro ident at top`

Variant `intro ident at bottom`

  These tactics behave as previously but naming the introduced hypothesis `ident`. It is equivalent to `intro ident` followed by the appropriate call to move (see `move ... after`).

`intros intro_pattern_list`

  This extension of the tactic `intros` allows to apply tactics on the fly on the variables or hypotheses which have been introduced. An introduction pattern list `intro_pattern_list` is a list of introduction patterns possibly containing the filling introduction patterns * and **. An introduction pattern is either:

  - a naming introduction pattern, i.e. either one of:
    - the pattern `?`
    - the pattern `?ident`
    - an identifier
  - an action introduction pattern which itself classifies into:
    - a disjunctive/conjunctive introduction pattern, i.e. either one of
      - a disjunction of lists of patterns `[intro_pattern_list | … | intro_pattern_list]`
      - a conjunction of patterns: `(p+,)`
      - a list of patterns `(p+&)` for sequence of right-associative binary constructs
    - an equality introduction pattern, i.e. either one of:
      - a pattern for decomposing an equality: `[= p+]`
      - the rewriting orientations: `->` or `<-`
    - the on-the-fly application of lemmas: `p%term+` where `p` itself is not a pattern for on-the-fly application of lemmas (note: syntax is in experimental stage)
  - the wildcard: `_`

  Assuming a goal of type `Q → P` (non-dependent product), or of type \(\forall\)`x:T, P` (dependent product), the behavior of `intros p` is defined inductively over the structure of the introduction pattern `p`:

Introduction on `?` performs the introduction, and lets Coq choose a fresh name for the variable;

Introduction on `?ident` performs the introduction, and lets Coq choose a fresh name for the variable based on `ident`;

Introduction on `ident` behaves as described in `intro`

Introduction over a disjunction of list of patterns `[intro_pattern_list | … | intro_pattern_list ]` expects the product to be over an inductive type whose number of constructors is n (or more generally over a type of conclusion an inductive type built from n constructors, e.g. `C -> A\/B` with n=2 since `A\/B` has 2 constructors): it destructs the introduced hypothesis as `destruct` (see `destruct`) would and applies on each generated subgoal the corresponding tactic;

Variant `intros intro_pattern_list`

  The introduction patterns in `intro_pattern_list` are expected to consume no more than the number of arguments of the i-th constructor. If it consumes less, then Coq completes the pattern so that all the arguments of the constructors of the inductive type are introduced (for instance, the list of patterns `[ | ] H` applied on goal `forall x:nat, x=0 -> 0=x` behaves the same as the list of patterns `[ | ? ] H`);

Introduction over a conjunction of patterns `(p+,)` expects the goal to be a product over an inductive type `I` with a single constructor that itself has at least n arguments: It performs a case analysis over the hypothesis, as `destruct` would, and applies the patterns `p+` to the arguments of the constructor of `I` (observe that `(p+)` is an alternative notation for `[p+]`);

Introduction via `(p+&)` is a shortcut for introduction via `(p,( … ,( …, p ) … ))`; it expects the hypothesis to be a sequence of right-associative binary inductive constructors such as `conj` or `ex_intro`; for instance, an hypothesis with type `A /\(exists x, B /\ C /\ D)` can be introduced via pattern `(a & x & b & c & d)`;

If the product is over an equality type, then a pattern of the form `[= p+]` applies either `injection` or `discriminate` instead of `destruct`; if `injection` is applicable, the patterns `p+,` are used on the hypotheses generated by `injection`; if the number of patterns is smaller than the number of hypotheses generated, the pattern `?` is used to complete the list;

Variant `introduction over ->`

Variant `introduction over <-`

  expects the hypothesis to be an equality and the right-hand-side (respectively the left-hand-side) is replaced by the left-hand-side (respectively the right-hand-side) in the conclusion of the goal; the hypothesis itself is erased; if the term to substitute is a variable, it is substituted also in the context of goal and the variable is removed too;

Introduction over a pattern `p%term+` first applies `term+` on the hypothesis to be introduced (as in `apply term+,`) prior to the application of the introduction pattern `p`;

Introduction on the wildcard depends on whether the product is dependent or not: in the non-dependent case, it erases the corresponding hypothesis (i.e. it behaves as an `intro` followed by a `clear`) while in the dependent case, it succeeds and erases the variable only if the wildcard is part of a more complex list of introduction patterns that also erases the hypotheses depending on this variable;

Introduction over `*` introduces all forthcoming quantified variables appearing in a row; introduction over `**` introduces all forthcoming quantified variables or hypotheses until the goal is not any more a quantification or an implication.

Example

Goal forall A B C: Prop, A \/ B /\ C -> (A -> C) -> C.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall A B C : Prop, A \/ B /\ C -> (A -> C) -> C
intros * [a | (_,c)] f.
  2 subgoals A, B, C : Prop a : A f : A -> C ============================ C subgoal 2 is: C

Note

`intros p+` is not equivalent to `intros p; … ; intros p` for the following reason: If one of the `p` is a wildcard pattern, it might succeed in the first case because the further hypotheses it depends in are eventually erased too while it might fail in the second case because of dependencies in hypotheses which are not yet introduced (and a fortiori not yet erased).

Note

In `intros intro_pattern_list`, if the last introduction pattern is a disjunctive or conjunctive pattern `[intro_pattern_list+|]`, the completion of `intro_pattern_list` so that all the arguments of the i-th constructors of the corresponding inductive type are introduced can be controlled with the following option:

Option `Bracketing Last Introduction Pattern`

  Force completion, if needed, when the last introduction pattern is a disjunctive or conjunctive pattern (on by default).

`clear ident`

  This tactic erases the hypothesis named `ident` in the local context of the current goal. As a consequence, `ident` is no more displayed and no more usable in the proof development.

Error `No such hypothesis.`

Error `ident is used in the conclusion.`

Error `ident is used in the hypothesis ident.`

Variant `clear ident+`

  This is equivalent to `clear ident. … clear ident.`

Variant `clearbody ident`

  This tactic expects `ident` to be a local definition then clears its body. Otherwise said, this tactic turns a definition into an assumption.

Error `ident is not a local definition`

Variant `clear - ident+`

  This tactic clears all the hypotheses except the ones depending in the hypotheses named `ident+` and in the goal.

Variant `clear`

  This tactic clears all the hypotheses except the ones the goal depends on.

Variant `clear dependent ident`

  This clears the hypothesis `ident` and all the hypotheses that depend on it.

`revert ident+`

This applies to any goal with variables `ident+`. It moves the hypotheses (possibly defined) to the goal, if this respects dependencies. This tactic is the inverse of `intro`.

Error `No such hypothesis.`

Error `ident is used in the hypothesis ident.`

`revert dependent @ident`

  This moves to the goal the hypothesis `ident` and all the hypotheses that depend on it.

`move ident after ident`

  This moves the hypothesis named `ident` in the local context after the hypothesis named `ident`, where “after” is in reference to the direction of the move. The proof term is not changed.

  If `ident` comes before `ident` in the order of dependencies, then all the hypotheses between `ident` and `ident@` that (possibly indirectly) depend on `ident` are moved too, and all of them are thus moved after `ident` in the order of dependencies.

  If `ident` comes after `ident` in the order of dependencies, then all the hypotheses between `ident` and `ident` that (possibly indirectly) occur in the type of `ident` are moved too, and all of them are thus moved before `ident` in the order of dependencies.

Variant `move ident before ident`

  This moves `ident` towards and just before the hypothesis named `ident`. As for `move ... after ...`, dependencies over `ident` (when `ident` comes before `ident` in the order of dependencies) or in the type of `ident` (when `ident` comes after `ident` in the order of dependencies) are moved too.

Variant `move ident at top`

  This moves `ident` at the top of the local context (at the beginning of the context).

Variant `move ident at bottom`

  This moves ident at the bottom of the local context (at the end of the context).

Error `No such hypothesis`

Error `Cannot move ident after ident : it occurs in the type of ident`

Error `Cannot move ident after ident : it depends on ident`

Example

Goal forall x :nat, x = 0 -> forall z y: nat, y=y-> 0=x.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall x : nat, x = 0 -> nat -> forall y : nat, y = y -> 0 = x
intros x H z y H0.
  1 subgoal x : nat H : x = 0 z, y : nat H0 : y = y ============================ 0 = x
move x after H0.
  1 subgoal z, y : nat H0 : y = y x : nat H : x = 0 ============================ 0 = x
Undo.
  1 subgoal x : nat H : x = 0 z, y : nat H0 : y = y ============================ 0 = x
move x before H0.
  1 subgoal z, y, x : nat H : x = 0 H0 : y = y ============================ 0 = x
Undo.
  1 subgoal x : nat H : x = 0 z, y : nat H0 : y = y ============================ 0 = x
move H0 after H.
  1 subgoal x, y : nat H0 : y = y H : x = 0 z : nat ============================ 0 = x
Undo.
  1 subgoal x : nat H : x = 0 z, y : nat H0 : y = y ============================ 0 = x
move H0 before H.
  1 subgoal x : nat H : x = 0 y : nat H0 : y = y z : nat ============================ 0 = x

`rename ident into ident`

This renames hypothesis `ident` into `ident` in the current context. The name of the hypothesis in the proof-term, however, is left unchanged.

Variant `rename ident into ident+,`

  This renames the variables `ident` into `ident` in parallel. In particular, the target identifiers may contain identifiers that exist in the source context, as long as the latter are also renamed by the same tactic.

Error `No such hypothesis`

Error `ident is already used`

`set (ident := term)`

  This replaces `term` by `ident` in the conclusion of the current goal and adds the new definition `ident := term` to the local context.

  If `term` has holes (i.e. subexpressions of the form “_”), the tactic first checks that all subterms matching the pattern are compatible before doing the replacement using the leftmost subterm matching the pattern.

Error `The variable ident is already defined`

Variant `set (ident := term ) in goal_occurrences`

  This notation allows specifying which occurrences of `term` have to be substituted in the context. The `in goal_occurrences` clause is an occurrence clause whose syntax and behavior are described in goal occurences.

Variant `set (ident binder+ := term )`

  This is equivalent to `set (ident := funbinder binder+ => term )`.

Variant `set term`
Variant `This behaves as :n:`set(ident := term)` but :n:`ident` is generated by`
Variant `Coq. This variant also supports an occurrence clause.`

Variant `set (ident binder+ := term) in goal_occurrences`

Variant `set term in goal_occurrences`

  These are the general forms that combine the previous possibilities.

Variant `eset (ident binder+ := term ) in goal_occurrences`

Variant `eset term in goal_occurrences`

  While the different variants of `set` expect that no existential variables are generated by the tactic, `eset` removes this constraint. In practice, this is relevant only when `eset` is used as a synonym of `epose`, i.e. when the :@term does not occur in the goal.

Variant `remember term as ident`

  This behaves as `set (ident:= term ) in *` and using a logical (Leibniz’s) equality instead of a local definition.

Variant `remember term as ident eqn:ident`

  This behaves as `remember term as ident`, except that the name of the generated equality is also given.

Variant `remember term as ident in goal_occurrences`

  This is a more general form of `remember` that remembers the occurrences of term specified by an occurrences set.

Variant `eremember term as ident`

Variant `eremember term as ident in goal_occurrences`

Variant `eremember term as ident eqn:ident`

  While the different variants of `remember` expect that no existential variables are generated by the tactic, `eremember` removes this constraint.

Variant `pose ( ident := term )`

  This adds the local definition `ident := term` to the current context without performing any replacement in the goal or in the hypotheses. It is equivalent to `set ( ident := term ) in |-`.

Variant `pose ( ident binder+ := term )`

  This is equivalent to `pose (ident := funbinder binder+ => term)`.

Variant `pose term`

  This behaves as `pose (ident := term )` but `ident` is generated by Coq.

Variant `epose (ident := term )`

Variant `epose (ident binder+ := term )`

Variant `epose term`

  While the different variants of `pose` expect that no existential variables are generated by the tactic, epose removes this constraint.

`decompose [qualid+] term`

  This tactic recursively decomposes a complex proposition in order to obtain atomic ones.

Example

Goal forall A B C: Prop, A /\ B /\ C \/ B /\ C \/ C /\ A -> C.
intros A B C H; decompose [and or] H; assumption.
  No more subgoals.
Qed.
  Unnamed_thm1 is defined 1 subgoal x : nat H : x = 0 y : nat H0 : y = y z : nat ============================ 0 = x

`decompose` does not work on right-hand sides of implications or products.

Variant `decompose sum term`

  This decomposes sum types (like or).

Variant `decompose record term`

  This decomposes record types (inductive types with one constructor, like “and” and “exists” and those defined with the Record macro, see Record types).

## Controlling the proof flow

`assert (ident : form)`

  This tactic applies to any goal. `assert (H : U)` adds a new hypothesis of name `H` asserting `U` to the current goal and opens a new subgoal `U` [2]. The subgoal `U` comes first in the list of subgoals remaining to prove.

Error `Not a proposition or a type`

  Arises when the argument form is neither of type `Prop`, `Set` nor `Type`.

Variant `assert form`

  This behaves as `assert (ident : form)` but `ident` is generated by Coq.

Variant `assert form by tactic`

  This tactic behaves like `assert` but applies tactic to solve the subgoals generated by assert.

  Error `Proof is not complete`

Variant `assert form as intro_pattern`

  If `intro_pattern` is a naming introduction pattern (see `intro`), the hypothesis is named after this introduction pattern (in particular, if `intro_pattern` is `ident`, the tactic behaves like `assert (ident : form)`). If `intro_pattern` is an action introduction pattern, the tactic behaves like `assert form` followed by the action done by this introduction pattern.

Variant `assert form as intro_pattern by tactic`

  This combines the two previous variants of `assert`.

Variant `assert (ident := term )`

  This behaves as `assert (ident : type) by exact term` where `type` is the type of `term`. This is deprecated in favor of `pose proof`. If the head of term is `ident`, the tactic behaves as `specialize term`.

  Error `Variable ident is already declared`

Variant `eassert form as intro_pattern by tactic`

Variant `assert (ident := term)`

  While the different variants of `assert` expect that no existential variables are generated by the tactic, `eassert` removes this constraint. This allows not to specify the asserted statement completeley before starting to prove it.

Variant `pose proof term as intro_pattern?`

  This tactic behaves like `assert T as intro_pattern? by exact term` where `T` is the type of `term`. In particular, `pose proof term as ident` behaves as `assert (ident := term)` and `pose proof term as intro_pattern` is the same as applying the intro_pattern to `term`.

Variant `epose proof term as intro_pattern?`

  While `pose proof` expects that no existential variables are generated by the tactic, `epose proof` removes this constraint.

Variant `enough (ident : form)`

  This adds a new hypothesis of name `ident` asserting `form` to the goal the tactic `enough` is applied to. A new subgoal stating `form` is inserted after the initial goal rather than before it as `assert` would do.

Variant `enough form`

  This behaves like `enough (ident : form)` with the name `ident` of the hypothesis generated by Coq.

Variant `enough form as intro_pattern`

  This behaves like `enough form` using `intro_pattern` to name or destruct the new hypothesis.

Variant `enough (ident : form) by tactic`

Variant `enough form by tactic`

Variant `enough form as intro_pattern by tactic`

  This behaves as above but with `tactic` expected to solve the initial goal after the extra assumption `form` is added and possibly destructed. If the `as intro_pattern` clause generates more than one subgoal, `tactic` is applied to all of them.

Variant `eenough (ident : form) by tactic`

Variant `eenough form by tactic`

Variant `eenough form as intro_pattern by tactic`

  While the different variants of `enough` expect that no existential variables are generated by the tactic, `eenough` removes this constraint.

Variant `cut form`

  This tactic applies to any goal. It implements the non-dependent case of the “App” rule given in Typing rules. (This is Modus Ponens inference rule.) `cut U` transforms the current goal `T` into the two following subgoals: `U -> T` and `U`. The subgoal `U -> T` comes first in the list of remaining subgoal to prove.

Variant `specialize (ident term*) as intro_pattern?`

Variant `specialize ident with bindings_list as intro_pattern?`

  The tactic `specialize` works on local hypothesis `ident`. The premises of this hypothesis (either universal quantifications or non-dependent implications) are instantiated by concrete terms coming either from arguments `term*` or from a bindings list. In the first form the application to `term*` can be partial. The first form is equivalent to `assert (ident := ident term*)`. In the second form, instantiation elements can also be partial. In this case the uninstantiated arguments are inferred by unification if possible or left quantified in the hypothesis otherwise. With the `as` clause, the local hypothesis `ident` is left unchanged and instead, the modified hypothesis is introduced as specified by the `intro_pattern`. The name `ident` can also refer to a global lemma or hypothesis. In this case, for compatibility reasons, the behavior of `specialize` is close to that of `generalize`: the instantiated statement becomes an additional premise of the goal. The `as` clause is especially useful in this case to immediately introduce the instantiated statement as a local hypothesis.

  Error `ident is used in hypothesis ident`
  Error `ident is used in conclusion`

`generalize term`

  This tactic applies to any goal. It generalizes the conclusion with respect to some term.

Example

Goal forall x y: nat, 0 <= x + y + y.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall x y : nat, 0 <= x + y + y
Proof.
intros *.
  1 subgoal x, y : nat ============================ 0 <= x + y + y

Show.
  1 subgoal x, y : nat ============================ 0 <= x + y + y
generalize (x + y + y).
  1 subgoal x, y : nat ============================ forall n : nat, 0 <= n

If the goal is `G` and `t` is a subterm of type `T` in the goal, then `generalize t` replaces the goal by `forall (x:T), G′` where `G′` is obtained from `G` by replacing all occurrences of `t` by `x`. The name of the variable (here `n`) is chosen based on `T`.

Variant `generalize term+`

  This is equivalent to `generalize term; … ; generalize term`. Note that the sequence of term i ‘s are processed from n to 1.

Variant `generalize term at num+`

  This is equivalent to `generalize term` but it generalizes only over the specified occurrences of `term` (counting from left to right on the expression printed using option `Printing All`).

Variant `generalize term as ident`

  This is equivalent to `generalize term` but it uses `ident` to name the generalized hypothesis.

Variant `generalize term at num+ as ident+,`

  This is the most general form of `generalize` that combines the previous behaviors.

Variant `generalize dependent term`

  This generalizes term but also all hypotheses that depend on `term`. It clears the generalized hypotheses.

`evar (ident : term)`

  The `evar` tactic creates a new local definition named `ident` with type `term` in the context. The body of this binding is a fresh existential variable.

`instantiate (ident := term )`

  The instantiate tactic refines (see `refine`) an existential variable `ident` with the term `term`. It is equivalent to only [ident]: `refine term` (preferred alternative).

  Note

  To be able to refer to an existential variable by name, the user must have given the name explicitly (see Existential variables).

  Note

  When you are referring to hypotheses which you did not name explicitly, be aware that Coq may make a different decision on how to name the variable in the current goal and in the context of the existential variable. This can lead to surprising behaviors.

Variant `instantiate (num := term)`

  This variant allows to refer to an existential variable which was not named by the user. The `num` argument is the position of the existential variable from right to left in the goal. Because this variant is not robust to slight changes in the goal, its use is strongly discouraged.

Variant `instantiate ( num := term ) in ident`

Variant `instantiate ( num := term ) in ( Value of ident )`

Variant `instantiate ( num := term ) in ( Type of ident )`

  These allow to refer respectively to existential variables occurring in a hypothesis or in the body or the type of a local definition.

Variant `instantiate`

  Without argument, the instantiate tactic tries to solve as many existential variables as possible, using information gathered from other tactics in the same tactical. This is automatically done after each complete tactic (i.e. after a dot in proof mode), but not, for example, between each tactic when they are sequenced by semicolons.

`admit`

The admit tactic allows temporarily skipping a subgoal so as to progress further in the rest of the proof. A proof containing admitted goals cannot be closed with `Qed` but only with `Admitted`.

Variant `give_up`

  Synonym of `admit`.

`absurd term`

  This tactic applies to any goal. The argument term is any proposition `P` of type `Prop`. This tactic applies False elimination, that is it deduces the current goal from False, and generates as subgoals `∼P` and `P`. It is very useful in proofs by cases, where some cases are impossible. In most cases, `P` or `∼P` is one of the hypotheses of the local context.

`contradiction`

  This tactic applies to any goal. The contradiction tactic attempts to find in the current context (after all intros) an hypothesis that is equivalent to an empty inductive type (e.g. `False`), to the negation of a singleton inductive type (e.g. `True` or `x=x`), or two contradictory hypotheses.

Error `No such assumption`

Variant `contradiction ident`

  The proof of False is searched in the hypothesis named `ident`.

`contradict ident`

  This tactic allows manipulating negated hypothesis and goals. The name `ident` should correspond to a hypothesis. With `contradict H`, the current goal and context is transformed in the following way:

  - H:¬A ⊢ B becomes ⊢ A
  - H:¬A ⊢ ¬B becomes H: B ⊢ A
  - H: A ⊢ B becomes ⊢ ¬A
  - H: A ⊢ ¬B becomes H: B ⊢ ¬A

`exfalso`

  This tactic implements the “ex falso quodlibet” logical principle: an elimination of False is performed on the current goal, and the user is then required to prove that False is indeed provable in the current context. This tactic is a macro for `elimtype False`.

## Case analysis and induction

The tactics presented in this section implement induction or case analysis on inductive or co-inductive objects (see Inductive Definitions).

`destruct term`

  This tactic applies to any goal. The argument `term` must be of inductive or co-inductive type and the tactic generates subgoals, one for each possible form of `term`, i.e. one for each constructor of the inductive or co-inductive type. Unlike `induction`, no induction hypothesis is generated by `destruct`.

  There are special cases:

  - If `term` is an identifier `ident` denoting a quantified variable of the conclusion of the goal, then `destruct ident` behaves as `intros until ident; destruct ident`. If `ident` is not anymore dependent in the goal after application of `destruct`, it is erased (to avoid erasure, use parentheses, as in `destruct (ident)`).

    - If term is a num, then destruct num behaves asintros until num followed by destruct applied to the last introduced hypothesis.

    Note

    For destruction of a numeral, use syntax destruct (num) (not very interesting anyway).

  - In case term is an hypothesis `ident` of the context, and `ident` is not anymore dependent in the goal after application of `destruct`, it is erased (to avoid erasure, use parentheses, as in `destruct (ident)`).

  - The argument `term` can also be a pattern of which holes are denoted by “_”. In this case, the tactic checks that all subterms matching the pattern in the conclusion and the hypotheses are compatible and performs case analysis using this subterm.

Variant `destruct term+,`

  This is a shortcut for `destruct term; …; destruct term`.

Variant `destruct term as disj_conj_intro_pattern`

  This behaves as `destruct term` but uses the names in `intro_pattern` to name the variables introduced in the context. The `intro_pattern` must have the form `[p11 … p1n | … | pm1 … pmn ]` with m being the number of constructors of the type of `term`. Each variable introduced by `destruct` in the context of the i-th goal gets its name from the list `pi1 … pin` in order. If there are not enough names, `destruct` invents names for the remaining variables to introduce. More generally, the `pij` can be any introduction pattern (see `intros`). This provides a concise notation for chaining destruction of an hypothesis.

Variant `destruct term eqn:naming_intro_pattern`

  This behaves as `destruct term` but adds an equation between `term` and the value that `term` takes in each of the possible cases. The name of the equation is specified by `naming_intro_pattern` (see `intros`), in particular ? can be used to let Coq generate a fresh name.

Variant `destruct term with bindings_list`

  This behaves like `destruct term` providing explicit instances for the dependent premises of the type of `term` (see syntax of bindings).

Variant `edestruct term`

  This tactic behaves like `destruct term` except that it does not fail if the instance of a dependent premises of the type of `term` is not inferable. Instead, the unresolved instances are left as existential variables to be inferred later, in the same way as `eapply` does.

Variant `destruct term using term`

Variant `destruct term using term with bindings_list`

  These are synonyms of `induction term using term` and `induction term using term with bindings_list`.

Variant `destruct term in goal_occurrences`

  This syntax is used for selecting which occurrences of `term` the case analysis has to be done on. The `in goal_occurrences` clause is an occurrence clause whose syntax and behavior is described in occurences sets.

Variant `destruct term with bindings_list as disj_conj_intro_pattern eqn:naming_intro_pattern using term with bindings_list in goal_occurrences`

Variant `edestruct term with bindings_list as disj_conj_intro_pattern eqn:naming_intro_pattern using term with bindings_list in goal_occurrences`

  These are the general forms of `destruct` and `edestruct`. They combine the effects of the with, as, eqn:, using, and in clauses.

Variant `case term`

  The tactic `case` is a more basic tactic to perform case analysis without recursion. It behaves as `elim term` but using a case-analysis elimination principle and not a recursive one.

Variant `case term with bindings_list`

  Analogous to `elim term with bindings_list` above.

Variant `ecase term with bindings_list?`

  In case the type of `term` has dependent premises, or dependent premises whose values are not inferable from the `with bindings_list` clause, `ecase` turns them into existential variables to be resolved later on.

Variant `simple destruct ident`

  This tactic behaves as `intros until ident; case ident` when `ident` is a quantified variable of the goal.

Variant `simple destruct num`

  This tactic behaves as `intros until num; case ident` where `ident` is the name given by `intros until num` to the `num` -th non-dependent premise of the goal.

Variant `case_eq term`

  The tactic `case_eq` is a variant of the `case` tactic that allow to perform case analysis on a term without completely forgetting its original form. This is done by generating equalities between the original form of the term and the outcomes of the case analysis.

`induction term`

  This tactic applies to any goal. The argument `term` must be of inductive type and the tactic `induction` generates subgoals, one for each possible form of `term`, i.e. one for each constructor of the inductive type.

  If the argument is dependent in either the conclusion or some hypotheses of the goal, the argument is replaced by the appropriate constructor form in each of the resulting subgoals and induction hypotheses are added to the local context using names whose prefix is IH.

  There are particular cases:

  - If term is an identifier `ident` denoting a quantified variable of the conclusion of the goal, then inductionident behaves as `intros until ident; induction ident`. If `ident` is not anymore dependent in the goal after application of `induction`, it is erased (to avoid erasure, use parentheses, as in `induction (ident)`).

  - If `term` is a `num`, then `induction num` behaves as `intros until num` followed by `induction` applied to the last introduced hypothesis.

    Note

    For simple induction on a numeral, use syntax induction (num) (not very interesting anyway).

  - In case term is an hypothesis `ident` of the context, and `ident` is not anymore dependent in the goal after application of `induction`, it is erased (to avoid erasure, use parentheses, as in `induction (ident)`).

  - The argument `term` can also be a pattern of which holes are denoted by “_”. In this case, the tactic checks that all subterms matching the pattern in the conclusion and the hypotheses are compatible and performs induction using this subterm.

Example

Lemma induction_test : forall n: nat, n = n -> n <= n.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall n : nat, n = n -> n <= n
intros n H.
  1 subgoal n : nat H : n = n ============================ n <= n
induction n.
  2 subgoals H : 0 = 0 ============================ 0 <= 0 subgoal 2 is: S n <= S n

Error `Not an inductive product`

Error `Unable to find an instance for the variables ident … ident`

  Use in this case the variant `elim ... with` below.

Variant `induction term as disj_conj_intro_pattern`

  This behaves as `induction` but uses the names in `disj_conj_intro_pattern` to name the variables introduced in the context. The `disj_conj_intro_pattern` must typically be of the form `[ p` 11 `… p` 1n `| … | p`m1 `… p`mn `]` with `m` being the number of constructors of the type of `term`. Each variable introduced by induction in the context of the i-th goal gets its name from the list `p`i1 `… p`in in order. If there are not enough names, induction invents names for the remaining variables to introduce. More generally, the `p`ij can be any disjunctive/conjunctive introduction pattern (see `intros ...`). For instance, for an inductive type with one constructor, the pattern notation `(p`1 `, … , p`n `)` can be used instead of `[ p`1 `… p`n `]`.

Variant `induction term with bindings_list`

  This behaves like `induction` providing explicit instances for the premises of the type of `term` (see bindings list).

Variant `einduction term`

  This tactic behaves like `induction` except that it does not fail if some dependent premise of the type of `term` is not inferable. Instead, the unresolved premises are posed as existential variables to be inferred later, in the same way as `eapply` does.

Variant `induction term using term`

  This behaves as `induction` but using `term` as induction scheme. It does not expect the conclusion of the type of the first `term` to be inductive.

Variant `induction term using term with bindings_list`

  This behaves as `induction ... using ...` but also providing instances for the premises of the type of the second `term`.

Variant `induction term+, using qualid`

  This syntax is used for the case `qualid` denotes an induction principle with complex predicates as the induction principles generated by `Function` or `Functional Scheme` may be.

Variant `induction term in goal_occurrences`

  This syntax is used for selecting which occurrences of `term` the induction has to be carried on. The `in goal_occurrences` clause is an occurrence clause whose syntax and behavior is described in occurences sets. If variables or hypotheses not mentioning `term` in their type are listed in `goal_occurrences`, those are generalized as well in the statement to prove.

  Example

  Lemma comm x y : x + y = y + x.
    1 subgoal x, y : nat ============================ x + y = y + x
  induction y in x |- *.
    2 subgoals x : nat ============================ x + 0 = 0 + x subgoal 2 is: x + S y = S y + x
  Show 2.
    subgoal 2 is: x, y : nat IHy : forall x : nat, x + y = y + x ============================ x + S y = S y + x

Variant `induction term with bindings_list as disj_conj_intro_pattern using term with bindings_list in goal_occurrences`

Variant `einduction term with bindings_list as disj_conj_intro_pattern using term with bindings_list in goal_occurrences`

  These are the most general forms of `induction` and `einduction`. It combines the effects of the with, as, using, and in clauses.

Variant `elim term`

  This is a more basic induction tactic. Again, the type of the argument `term` must be an inductive type. Then, according to the type of the goal, the tactic `elim` chooses the appropriate destructor and applies it as the tactic `apply` would do. For instance, if the proof context contains `n:nat` and the current goal is `T` of type `Prop`, then `elim n` is equivalent to `apply nat_ind with (n:=n)`. The tactic `elim` does not modify the context of the goal, neither introduces the induction loading into the context of hypotheses. More generally, `elim term` also works when the type of `term` is a statement with premises and whose conclusion is inductive. In that case the tactic performs induction on the conclusion of the type of `term` and leaves the non-dependent premises of the type as subgoals. In the case of dependent products, the tactic tries to find an instance for which the elimination lemma applies and fails otherwise.

Variant `elim term with bindings_list`

  Allows to give explicit instances to the premises of the type of `term` (see bindings list).

Variant `eelim term`

  In case the type of `term` has dependent premises, this turns them into existential variables to be resolved later on.

Variant `elim term using term`

Variant `elim term using term with bindings_list`

  Allows the user to give explicitly an induction principle `term` that is not the standard one for the underlying inductive type of `term`. The `bindings_list` clause allows instantiating premises of the type of `term`.

Variant `elim term with bindings_list using term with bindings_list`

Variant `eelim term with bindings_list using term with bindings_list`

  These are the most general forms of `elim` and `eelim`. It combines the effects of the `using` clause and of the two uses of the `with` clause.

Variant `elimtype form`

  The argument `form` must be inductively defined. `elimtype I` is equivalent to `cut I. intro Hn; elim Hn; clear Hn.` Therefore the hypothesis `Hn` will not appear in the context(s) of the subgoal(s). Conversely, if `t` is a `term` of (inductive) type `I` that does not occur in the goal, then `elim t` is equivalent to `elimtype I; 2:exact t.`

Variant `simple induction ident`

  This tactic behaves as `intros until ident; elim ident` when `ident` is a quantified variable of the goal.

Variant `simple induction num`

  This tactic behaves as `intros until num; elim ident` where `ident` is the name given by `intros until num` to the `num`-th non-dependent premise of the goal.

`double induction ident ident`

  This tactic is deprecated and should be replaced by `induction ident; induction ident` (or `induction ident ; destruct ident` depending on the exact needs).

Variant `double induction num1 num2`

  This tactic is deprecated and should be replaced by `induction num1; induction num3` where `num3` is the result of `num2 - num1`

`dependent induction ident`

  The experimental tactic dependent induction performs induction- inversion on an instantiated inductive predicate. One needs to first require the Coq.Program.Equality module to use this tactic. The tactic is based on the BasicElim tactic by Conor McBride [McB00] and the work of Cristina Cornes around inversion [CT95]. From an instantiated inductive predicate and a goal, it generates an equivalent goal where the hypothesis has been generalized over its indexes which are then constrained by equalities to be the right instances. This permits to state lemmas without resorting to manually adding these equalities and still get enough information in the proofs.

Example

Lemma le_minus : forall n: nat, n < 1 -> n = 0.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall n : nat, n < 1 -> n = 0
intros n H ; induction H.
  2 subgoals n : nat ============================ n = 0 subgoal 2 is: n = 0

Here we did not get any information on the indexes to help fulfill this proof. The problem is that, when we use the `induction` tactic, we lose information on the hypothesis instance, notably that the second argument is 1 here. Dependent induction solves this problem by adding the corresponding equality to the context.

Require Import Coq.Program.Equality.
Lemma le_minus : forall n: nat, n < 1 -> n = 0.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall n : nat, n < 1 -> n = 0
intros n H ; dependent induction H.
  2 subgoals ============================ 0 = 0 subgoal 2 is: n = 0

The subgoal is cleaned up as the tactic tries to automatically simplify the subgoals with respect to the generated equalities. In this enriched context, it becomes possible to solve this subgoal.

reflexivity.
  1 subgoal n : nat H : S n <= 0 IHle : 0 = 1 -> n = 0 ============================ n = 0

Now we are in a contradictory context and the proof can be solved.

inversion H.
  No more subgoals.

This technique works with any inductive predicate. In fact, the `dependent induction` tactic is just a wrapper around the `induction` tactic. One can make its own variant by just writing a new tactic based on the definition found in `Coq.Program.Equality`.

Variant `dependent induction ident generalizing ident+`

  This performs dependent induction on the hypothesis `ident` but first generalizes the goal by the given variables so that they are universally quantified in the goal. This is generally what one wants to do with the variables that are inside some constructors in the induction hypothesis. The other ones need not be further generalized.

Variant `dependent destruction ident`

  This performs the generalization of the instance `ident` but uses `destruct` instead of induction on the generalized hypothesis. This gives results equivalent to `inversion` or `dependent inversion` if the hypothesis is dependent.

See also the larger example of `dependent induction` and an explanation of the underlying technique.

`function induction (qualid term+)`

  The tactic functional induction performs case analysis and induction following the definition of a function. It makes use of a principle generated by `Function` (see Advanced recursive functions) or `Functional Scheme` (see Generation of induction principles with Functional Scheme). Note that this tactic is only available after a

Example

Require Import FunInd.
  [Loading ML file extraction_plugin.cmxs … done] [Loading ML file recdef_plugin.cmxs … done]
Functional Scheme minus_ind := Induction for minus Sort Prop.
  sub_equation is defined minus_ind is defined
Check minus_ind.
  minus_ind : forall P : nat -> nat -> nat -> Prop, (forall n m : nat, n = 0 -> P 0 m n) -> (forall n m k : nat, n = S k -> m = 0 -> P (S k) 0 n) -> (forall n m k : nat, n = S k -> forall l : nat, m = S l -> P k l (k - l) -> P (S k) (S l) (k - l)) -> forall n m : nat, P n m (n - m)
Lemma le_minus (n m: nat) : n - m <= n.
  1 subgoal n, m : nat ============================ n - m <= n
functional induction (minus n m) using minus_ind; simpl; auto.
  No more subgoals.
Qed.
  le_minus is defined

Note

`(qualid term+)` must be a correct full application of `qualid`. In particular, the rules for implicit arguments are the same as usual. For example use `qualid` if you want to write implicit arguments explicitly.

Note

Parentheses over `qualid term+` are mandatory.

Note

`functional induction (f x1 x2 x3)` is actually a wrapper for `induction x1, x2, x3, (f x1 x2 x3) using qualid` followed by a cleaning phase, where `qualid` is the induction principle registered for `f` (by the `Function` (see Advanced recursive functions) or `Functional Scheme` (see Generation of induction principles with Functional Scheme) command) corresponding to the sort of the goal. Therefore `functional induction` may fail if the induction scheme `qualid` is not defined. See also Advanced recursive functions for the function terms accepted by `Function`.

Note

There is a difference between obtaining an induction scheme for a function by using `Function` (see Advanced recursive functions) and by using `Functional Scheme` after a normal definition using `Fixpoint` or `Definition`. See Advanced recursive functions for details.

See also: Advanced recursive functions
  Generation of induction principles with Functional Scheme `inversion`

Error `Cannot find induction information on qualid`

Error `Not the right number of induction arguments`

Variant `functional induction (qualid term+) as disj_conj_intro_pattern using term with bindings_list`

  Similarly to `induction` and `elim`, this allows giving explicitly the name of the introduced variables, the induction principle, and the values of dependent premises of the elimination scheme, including predicates for mutual induction when `qualid` is part of a mutually recursive definition.

`discriminate term`

  This tactic proves any goal from an assumption stating that two structurally different `terms` of an inductive set are equal. For example, from `(S (S O))=(S O)` we can derive by absurdity any proposition.

  The argument `term` is assumed to be a proof of a statement of conclusion `term = term` with the two terms being elements of an inductive set. To build the proof, the tactic traverses the normal forms [3] of the terms looking for a couple of subterms `u` and `w` (`u` subterm of the normal form of `term` and `w` subterm of the normal form of `term`), placed at the same positions and whose head symbols are two different constructors. If such a couple of subterms exists, then the proof of the current goal is completed, otherwise the tactic fails.

Note

The syntax `discriminate ident` can be used to refer to a hypothesis quantified in the goal. In this case, the quantified hypothesis whose name is `ident` is first introduced in the local context using `intros until ident`.

Error `No primitive equality found`

Error `Not a discriminable equality`

Variant `discriminate num`

  This does the same thing as `intros until num` followed by `discriminate ident` where `ident` is the identifier for the last introduced hypothesis.

Variant `discriminate term with bindings_list`

  This does the same thing as `discriminate term` but using the given bindings to instantiate parameters or hypotheses of `term`.

Variant `ediscriminate num`

Variant `ediscriminate term with bindings_list?`

  This works the same as `discriminate` but if the type of `term`, or the type of the hypothesis referred to by `num`, has uninstantiated parameters, these parameters are left as existential variables.

Variant `discriminate`

  This behaves like `discriminate ident` if ident is the name of an hypothesis to which `discriminate` is applicable; if the current goal is of the form `term <> term`, this behaves as `intro ident; discriminate ident`.

  Error `No discriminable equalities`

`injection term`

  The injection tactic exploits the property that constructors of inductive types are injective, i.e. that if `c` is a constructor of an inductive type and `c t`1 and `c t`2 are equal then `t`1 and `t`2 are equal too.

  If `term` is a proof of a statement of conclusion `term = term`, then `injection` applies the injectivity of constructors as deep as possible to derive the equality of all the subterms of `term` and `term` at positions where the terms start to differ. For example, from `(S p, S n) = (q, S (S m))` we may derive `S p = q` and `n = S m`. For this tactic to work, the terms should be typed with an inductive type and they should be neither convertible, nor having a different head constructor. If these conditions are satisfied, the tactic derives the equality of all the subterms at positions where they differ and adds them as antecedents to the conclusion of the current goal.

Example

Consider the following goal:

Inductive list : Set := | nil : list | cons : nat -> list -> list.
  list is defined list_rect is defined list_ind is defined list_rec is defined
Variable P : list -> Prop.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-26: > Variable P : list -> Prop. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: P is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] P is declared
Goal forall l n, P nil -> cons n l = cons 0 nil -> P l.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall (l : list) (n : nat), P nil -> cons n l = cons 0 nil -> P l
intros.
  1 subgoal l : list n : nat H : P nil H0 : cons n l = cons 0 nil ============================ P l
injection H0.
  1 subgoal l : list n : nat H : P nil H0 : cons n l = cons 0 nil ============================ l = nil -> n = 0 -> P l

Beware that injection yields an equality in a sigma type whenever the injected object has a dependent type `P` with its two instances in different types `(P t`1 `… t`n `)` and `(P u`1 `… u`n ). If `t`1 and `u`1 are the same and have for type an inductive type for which a decidable equality has been declared using the command `Scheme Equality` (see Generation of induction principles with Scheme), the use of a sigma type is avoided.

Note

If some quantified hypothesis of the goal is named `ident`, then `injection ident` first introduces the hypothesis in the local context using `intros until ident`.

Error `Not a projectable equality but a discriminable one`

Error `Nothing to do, it is an equality between convertible terms`

Error `Not a primitive equality`

Error `Nothing to inject`

Variant `injection num`

  This does the same thing as `intros until num` followed by `injection ident` where `ident` is the identifier for the last introduced hypothesis.

Variant `injection term with bindings_list`

  This does the same as `injection term` but using the given bindings to instantiate parameters or hypotheses of `term`.

Variant `einjection num`

Variant `einjection term with bindings_list?`

  This works the same as `injection` but if the type of `term`, or the type of the hypothesis referred to by `num`, has uninstantiated parameters, these parameters are left as existential variables.

Variant `injection`

  If the current goal is of the form `term <> term` , this behaves as `intro ident; injection ident`.

  Error `goal does not satisfy the expected preconditions`

Variant `injection term with bindings_list? as intro_pattern+`

Variant `injection num as intro_pattern+`

Variant `injection as intro_pattern+`

Variant `einjection term with bindings_list? as intro_pattern+`

Variant `einjection num as intro_pattern+`

Variant `einjection as intro_pattern+`

  These variants apply `intros intro_pattern+` after the call to `injection` or `einjection` so that all equalities generated are moved in the context of hypotheses. The number of `intro_pattern` must not exceed the number of equalities newly generated. If it is smaller, fresh names are automatically generated to adjust the list of `intro_pattern` to the number of new equalities. The original equality is erased if it corresponds to an hypothesis.

Option `Structural Injection`

  This option ensure that `injection term` erases the original hypothesis and leaves the generated equalities in the context rather than putting them as antecedents of the current goal, as if giving `injection term as` (with an empty list of names). This option is off by default.

Option `Keep Proof Equalities`

  By default, `injection` only creates new equalities between `terms` whose type is in sort `Type` or `Set`, thus implementing a special behavior for objects that are proofs of a statement in `Prop`. This option controls this behavior.

`inversion ident`

  Let the type of `ident` in the local context be `(I t)`, where `I` is a (co)inductive predicate. Then, `inversion` applied to `ident` derives for each possible constructor `c i` of `(I t)`, all the necessary conditions that should hold for the instance `(I t)` to be proved by `c i`.

Note

If `ident` does not denote a hypothesis in the local context but refers to a hypothesis quantified in the goal, then the latter is first introduced in the local context using `intros until ident`.

Note

As `inversion` proofs may be large in size, we recommend the user to stock the lemmas whenever the same instance needs to be inverted several times. See Generation of inversion principles with Derive Inversion.

Note

Part of the behavior of the `inversion` tactic is to generate equalities between expressions that appeared in the hypothesis that is being processed. By default, no equalities are generated if they relate two proofs (i.e. equalities between `terms` whose type is in sort `Prop`). This behavior can be turned off by using the option :opt`Keep Proof Equalities`.

Variant `inversion num`

  This does the same thing as `intros until num` then `inversion ident` where `ident` is the identifier for the last introduced hypothesis.

Variant `inversion_clear ident`

  This behaves as `inversion` and then erases `ident` from the context.

Variant `inversion ident as intro_pattern`

  This generally behaves as inversion but using names in `intro_pattern` for naming hypotheses. The `intro_pattern` must have the form `[p`11 `… p`1n `| … | p`m1 `… p`mn `]` with m being the number of constructors of the type of `ident`. Be careful that the list must be of length m even if `inversion` discards some cases (which is precisely one of its roles): for the discarded cases, just use an empty list (i.e. n = 0).The arguments of the i-th constructor and the equalities that `inversion` introduces in the context of the goal corresponding to the i-th constructor, if it exists, get their names from the list `p`i1 `… p`in in order. If there are not enough names, `inversion` invents names for the remaining variables to introduce. In case an equation splits into several equations (because `inversion` applies `injection` on the equalities it generates), the corresponding name `p`ij in the list must be replaced by a sublist of the form `[p`ij1 `… p`ijq `]` (or, equivalently, `(p`ij1 `, …, p`ijq `)`) where q is the number of subequalities obtained from splitting the original equation. Here is an example. The `inversion ... as` variant of `inversion` generally behaves in a slightly more expectable way than `inversion` (no artificial duplication of some hypotheses referring to other hypotheses). To take benefit of these improvements, it is enough to use `inversion ... as []`, letting the names being finally chosen by Coq.

  Example

  Inductive contains0 : list nat -> Prop := | in_hd : forall l, contains0 (0 :: l) | in_tl : forall l b, contains0 l -> contains0 (b :: l).
    contains0 is defined contains0_ind is defined
  Goal forall l: list nat, contains0 (1 :: l) -> contains0 l.
    1 subgoal ============================ forall l : list nat, contains0 (1 :: l) -> contains0 l
  intros l H; inversion H as [ | l’ p Hl’ [Heqp Heql’] ].
    1 subgoal l : list nat H : contains0 (1 :: l) l’ : list nat p : nat Hl’ : contains0 l Heqp : p = 1 Heql’ : l’ = l ============================ contains0 l

Variant `inversion num as intro_pattern`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced by `inversion num` in the context.

Variant `inversion_clear ident as intro_pattern`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced by `inversion_clear` in the context. Notice that hypothesis names can be provided as if `inversion` were called, even though the `inversion_clear` will eventually erase the hypotheses.

Variant `inversion ident in ident+`

  Let `ident+` be identifiers in the local context. This tactic behaves as generalizing `ident+`, and then performing `inversion`.

Variant `inversion ident as intro_pattern in ident+`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced in the context by `inversion ident in ident+`.

Variant `inversion_clear ident in ident+`

  Let `ident+` be identifiers in the local context. This tactic behaves as generalizing `ident+`, and then performing `inversion_clear`.

Variant `inversion_clear ident as intro_pattern in ident+`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced in the context by `inversion_clear ident in ident+`.

Variant `dependent inversion ident`

  That must be used when `ident` appears in the current goal. It acts like `inversion` and then substitutes `ident` for the corresponding `@term` in the goal.

Variant `dependent inversion ident as intro_pattern`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced in the context by `dependent inversion ident`.

Variant `dependent inversion_clear ident`

  Like `dependent inversion`, except that `ident` is cleared from the local context.

Variant `dependent inversion_clear ident as intro_pattern`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced in the context by `dependent inversion_clear ident`.

Variant `dependent inversion ident with term`

  This variant allows you to specify the generalization of the goal. It is useful when the system fails to generalize the goal automatically. If `ident` has type `(I t)` and `I` has type \(\forall\) `(x:T), s`, then `term` must be of type `I:`\(\forall\) `(x:T), I x -> s’` where `s’` is the type of the goal.

Variant `dependent inversion ident as intro_pattern with term`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced in the context by `dependent inversion ident with term`.

Variant `dependent inversion_clear ident with term`

  Like `dependent inversion ...` with but clears `ident` from the local context.

Variant `dependent inversion_clear ident as intro_pattern with term`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced in the context by `dependent inversion_clear ident with term`.

Variant `simple inversion ident`

  It is a very primitive inversion tactic that derives all the necessary equalities but it does not simplify the constraints as `inversion` does.

Variant `simple inversion ident as intro_pattern`

  This allows naming the hypotheses introduced in the context by `simple inversion`.

Variant `inversion ident using ident`

  Let `ident` have type `(I t)` (`I` an inductive predicate) in the local context, and `ident` be a (dependent) inversion lemma. Then, this tactic refines the current goal with the specified lemma.

Variant `inversion ident using ident in ident+`

  This tactic behaves as generalizing `ident+`, then doing `inversion ident using ident`.

Variant `inversion_sigma`

  This tactic turns equalities of dependent pairs (e.g., `existT P x p = existT P y q`, frequently left over by inversion on a dependent type family) into pairs of equalities (e.g., a hypothesis `H : x = y` and a hypothesis of type `rew H in p = q`); these hypotheses can subsequently be simplified using `subst`, without ever invoking any kind of axiom asserting uniqueness of identity proofs. If you want to explicitly specify the hypothesis to be inverted, or name the generated hypotheses, you can invoke `induction H as [H1 H2] using eq_sigT_rect.` This tactic also works for `sig`, `sigT2`, and `sig2`, and there are similar `eq_sig` `***_rect` induction lemmas.

Example

Non-dependent inversion.

Let us consider the relation Le over natural numbers and the following variables:

Inductive Le : nat -> nat -> Set := | LeO : forall n: nat, Le 0 n | LeS : forall n m: nat, Le n m -> Le (S n) (S m).
  Le is defined Le_rect is defined Le_ind is defined Le_rec is defined
Variable P : nat -> nat -> Prop.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-32: > Variable P : nat -> nat -> Prop. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: P is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] P is declared
Variable Q : forall n m: nat, Le n m -> Prop.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-44: > Variable Q : forall n m:nat, Le n m -> Prop. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: Q is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] Q is declared

Let us consider the following goal:

Goal forall n m, Le (S n) m -> P n m.
  Le is defined Le_rect is defined Le_ind is defined Le_rec is defined Toplevel input, characters -78–46: Warning: P is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] P is declared Toplevel input, characters -45–1: Warning: Q is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] Q is declared 1 subgoal ============================ forall n m : nat, Le (S n) m -> P n m
intros.
  1 subgoal n, m : nat H : Le (S n) m ============================ P n m

Show.
  1 subgoal n, m : nat H : Le (S n) m ============================ P n m

To prove the goal, we may need to reason by cases on H and to derive that m is necessarily of the form (S m 0 ) for certain m 0 and that (Le n m 0 ). Deriving these conditions corresponds to prove that the only possible constructor of (Le (S n) m) isLeS and that we can invert the-> in the type of LeS. This inversion is possible because Le is the smallest set closed by the constructors LeO and LeS.

inversion_clear H.
  1 subgoal n, m, m0 : nat H0 : Le n m0 ============================ P n (S m0)

Note that m has been substituted in the goal for (S m0) and that the hypothesis (Le n m0) has been added to the context.

Sometimes it is interesting to have the equality m=(S m0) in the context to use it after. In that case we can use inversion that does not clear the equalities:

inversion H.
  1 subgoal n, m : nat H : Le (S n) m n0, m0 : nat H1 : Le n m0 H0 : n0 = n H2 : S m0 = m ============================ P n (S m0)

Example

Dependent inversion.

Let us consider the following goal:

Inductive Le : nat -> nat -> Set := | LeO : forall n: nat, Le 0 n | LeS : forall n m: nat, Le n m -> Le (S n) (S m).
  Le is defined Le_rect is defined Le_ind is defined Le_rec is defined
Variable P : nat -> nat -> Prop.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-32: > Variable P : nat -> nat -> Prop. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: P is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] P is declared
Variable Q : forall n m: nat, Le n m -> Prop.
  Toplevel input, characters 0-44: > Variable Q : forall n m:nat, Le n m -> Prop. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Warning: Q is declared as a local axiom [local-declaration,scope] Q is declared
Goal forall n m (H: Le (S n) m), Q (S n) m H.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall (n m : nat) (H : Le (S n) m), Q (S n) m H
intros.
  1 subgoal n, m : nat H : Le (S n) m ============================ Q (S n) m H

Show.
  1 subgoal n, m : nat H : Le (S n) m ============================ Q (S n) m H

As H occurs in the goal, we may want to reason by cases on its structure and so, we would like inversion tactics to substitute H by the corresponding @term in constructor form. Neither Inversion nor Inversion_clear make such a substitution. To have such a behavior we use the dependent inversion tactics:

dependent inversion_clear H.
  1 subgoal n, m, m0 : nat l : Le n m0 ============================ Q (S n) (S m0) (LeS n m0 l)

Note that H has been substituted by (LeS n m0 l) andm by (S m0).

Example

Using inversion_sigma.

Let us consider the following inductive type of length-indexed lists, and a lemma about inverting equality of cons:

Require Import Coq.Logic.Eqdep_dec.
Inductive vec A : nat -> Type := | nil : vec A O | cons {n} (x : A) (xs : vec A n) : vec A (S n).
  vec is defined vec_rect is defined vec_ind is defined vec_rec is defined
Lemma invert_cons : forall A n x xs y ys, @cons A n x xs = @cons A n y ys -> xs = ys.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall (A : Type) (n : nat) (x : A) (xs : vec A n) (y : A) (ys : vec A n), cons A x xs = cons A y ys -> xs = ys
Proof.
intros A n x xs y ys H.
  1 subgoal A : Type n : nat x : A xs : vec A n y : A ys : vec A n H : cons A x xs = cons A y ys ============================ xs = ys

After performing inversion, we are left with an equality of existTs:

inversion H.
  1 subgoal A : Type n : nat x : A xs : vec A n y : A ys : vec A n H : cons A x xs = cons A y ys H1 : x = y H2 : existT (fun n : nat => vec A n) n xs = existT (fun n : nat => vec A n) n ys ============================ xs = ys

We can turn this equality into a usable form with inversion_sigma:

inversion_sigma.
  1 subgoal A : Type n : nat x : A xs : vec A n y : A ys : vec A n H : cons A x xs = cons A y ys H1 : x = y H0 : n = n H3 : eq_rect n (fun a : nat => vec A a) xs n H0 = ys ============================ xs = ys

To finish cleaning up the proof, we will need to use the fact that that all proofs of n = n for n a nat are eq_refl:

let H := match goal with H : n = n |- _ => H end in pose proof (Eqdep_dec.UIP_refl_nat _ H); subst H.
  1 subgoal A : Type n : nat x : A xs : vec A n y : A ys : vec A n H : cons A x xs = cons A y ys H1 : x = y H3 : eq_rect n (fun a : nat => vec A a) xs n eq_refl = ys ============================ xs = ys
simpl in *.
  1 subgoal A : Type n : nat x : A xs : vec A n y : A ys : vec A n H : cons A x xs = cons A y ys H1 : x = y H3 : xs = ys ============================ xs = ys

Finally, we can finish the proof:

assumption.
  No more subgoals.
Qed.
  invert_cons is defined

`fix ident num`

  This tactic is a primitive tactic to start a proof by induction. In general, it is easier to rely on higher-level induction tactics such as the ones described in `induction`.

  In the syntax of the tactic, the identifier `ident` is the name given to the induction hypothesis. The natural number `num` tells on which premise of the current goal the induction acts, starting from 1, counting both dependent and non dependent products, but skipping local definitions. Especially, the current lemma must be composed of at least `num` products.

  Like in a fix expression, the induction hypotheses have to be used on structurally smaller arguments. The verification that inductive proof arguments are correct is done only at the time of registering the lemma in the environment. To know if the use of induction hypotheses is correct at some time of the interactive development of a proof, use the command `Guarded` (see Section Requesting information).

Variant `fix ident num with (ident binder+ [{struct ident}] : type)+`

  This starts a proof by mutual induction. The statements to be simultaneously proved are respectively `forall binder … binder, type`. The identifiers `ident` are the names of the induction hypotheses. The identifiers `ident` are the respective names of the premises on which the induction is performed in the statements to be simultaneously proved (if not given, the system tries to guess itself what they are).

`cofix ident`

  This tactic starts a proof by coinduction. The identifier `ident` is the name given to the coinduction hypothesis. Like in a cofix expression, the use of induction hypotheses have to guarded by a constructor. The verification that the use of co-inductive hypotheses is correct is done only at the time of registering the lemma in the environment. To know if the use of coinduction hypotheses is correct at some time of the interactive development of a proof, use the command `Guarded` (see Section Requesting information).

Variant `cofix ident with (ident binder+ : type)+`

  This starts a proof by mutual coinduction. The statements to be simultaneously proved are respectively `forall binder … binder, type` The identifiers `ident` are the names of the coinduction hypotheses.

## Rewriting expressions

These tactics use the equality `eq:forall A:Type, A->A->Prop` defined in file `Logic.v` (see Logic). The notation for `eq T t u` is simply `t=u` dropping the implicit type of `t` and `u`.

`rewrite term`

This tactic applies to any goal. The type of `term` must have the form

`forall (x`1 `:A`1 `) ... (x`n `:A`n `). eq term`1 `term`2 `.`

where `eq` is the Leibniz equality or a registered setoid equality.

Then `rewrite term` finds the first subterm matching term1 in the goal, resulting in instances term1’ and term2’ and then replaces every occurrence of term1’ by term2’. Hence, some of the variables `x`i are solved by unification, and some of the types `A`1`, …, A`n become new subgoals.

Error `The term provided does not end with an equation`

Error `Tactic generated a subgoal identical to the original goal. This happens if term does not occur in the goal.`

Variant `rewrite -> term`

  Is equivalent to `rewrite term`

Variant `rewrite <- term`

  Uses the equality `term`1 `= term` 2 from right to left

Variant `rewrite term in clause`

  Analogous to `rewrite term` but rewriting is done following clause (similarly to performing computations). For instance:

  > - `rewrite H in H`1 will rewrite H in the hypothesis H1 instead of the current goal.
  > - `rewrite H in H`1 `at 1, H`2 `at - 2 |- *` means `rewrite H; rewrite H in H`1 `at 1; rewrite H in H`2 `at - 2.` In particular a failure will happen if any of these three simpler tactics fails.
  > - `rewrite H in * |-` will do `rewrite H in H`i for all hypotheses `H`i `<> H`. A success will happen as soon as at least one of these simpler tactics succeeds.
  > - `rewrite H in *` is a combination of `rewrite H` and `rewrite H in * |-` that succeeds if at least one of these two tactics succeeds.

  Orientation `->` or `<-` can be inserted before the `term` to rewrite.

Variant `rewrite term at occurrences`

  Rewrite only the given occurrences of `term`. Occurrences are specified from left to right as for pattern (`pattern`). The rewrite is always performed using setoid rewriting, even for Leibniz’s equality, so one has to `Import Setoid` to use this variant.

Variant `rewrite term by tactic`

  Use tactic to completely solve the side-conditions arising from the `rewrite`.

Variant `rewrite term+`

  Is equivalent to the n successive tactics `rewrite term+`, each one working on the first subgoal generated by the previous one. Orientation `->` or `<-` can be inserted before each `term` to rewrite. One unique clause can be added at the end after the keyword in; it will then affect all rewrite operations.

  In all forms of rewrite described above, a `term` to rewrite can be immediately prefixed by one of the following modifiers:

  - ? : the tactic rewrite `?term` performs the rewrite of `term` as many times as possible (perhaps zero time). This form never fails.
  - n? : works similarly, except that it will do at most n rewrites.
  - ! : works as ?, except that at least one rewrite should succeed, otherwise the tactic fails.
  - n! (or simply n) : precisely n rewrites of `term` will be done, leading to failure if these n rewrites are not possible.

Variant `erewrite term`
Variant `:name: erewrite`

  This tactic works as `rewrite term` but turning unresolved bindings into existential variables, if any, instead of failing. It has the same variants as `rewrite` has.

`replace term with term`

  This tactic applies to any goal. It replaces all free occurrences of `term` in the current goal with `term` and generates the equality `term = term` as a subgoal. This equality is automatically solved if it occurs among the assumption, or if its symmetric form occurs. It is equivalent to `cut term = term; [intro H`n `; rewrite <- H`n `; clear H`n`|| assumption || symmetry; try assumption]`.

Error `terms do not have convertible types`

Variant `replace term with term by tactic`

  This acts as `replace term` with `term` but applies tactic to solve the generated subgoal `term = term`.

Variant `replace term`

  Replaces `term` with `term’` using the first assumption whose type has the form `term = term’` or `term’ = term`.

Variant `replace -> term`

  Replaces `term` with `term’` using the first assumption whose type has the form `term = term’`

Variant `replace <- term`

  Replaces `term` with `term’` using the first assumption whose type has the form `term’ = term`

Variant `replace term with term in clause`

Variant `replace term with term in clause by tactic`

Variant `replace term in clause replace -> term in clause`

Variant `replace <- term in clause`

  Acts as before but the replacements take place inclause (see Performing computations) and not only in the conclusion of the goal. The clause argument must not contain any type of nor value of.

Variant `cutrewrite <- (term = term)`
Variant `:cutrewrite:`

  This tactic is deprecated. It acts like `replace term with term`, or, equivalently as `enough (term = term) as <-`.

Variant `cutrewrite -> (term = term)`

  This tactic is deprecated. It can be replaced by enough `(term = term) as ->`.

`subst ident`

This tactic applies to a goal that has `ident` in its context and (at least) one hypothesis, say `H`, of type `ident = t` or `t = ident` with `ident` not occurring in `t`. Then it replaces `ident` by `t` everywhere in the goal (in the hypotheses and in the conclusion) and clears `ident` and `H` from the context.

If `ident` is a local definition of the form `ident := t`, it is also unfolded and cleared.

Note

When several hypotheses have the form `ident = t` or `t = ident`, the first one is used.

Note

If H is itself dependent in the goal, it is replaced by the proof of reflexivity of equality.

Variant `subst ident+`

  This is equivalent to `subst ident`1`; …; subst ident`n.

Variant `subst`

  This applies subst repeatedly from top to bottom to all identifiers of the context for which an equality of the form `ident = t` or `t = ident` or `ident := t` exists, with `ident` not occurring in t.

  Option `Regular Subst Tactic`

    This option controls the behavior of `subst`. When it is activated, `subst` also deals with the following corner cases:

    - A context with ordered hypotheses `ident`1 `= ident`2 and `ident`1 `= t`, or `t′ = ident`1` with t′ not a variable, and no other hypotheses of the form `ident`2 `= u` or `u = ident`2; without the option, a second call to subst would be necessary to replace `ident`2 by t or t′ respectively.
    - The presence of a recursive equation which without the option would be a cause of failure of `subst`.
    - A context with cyclic dependencies as with hypotheses `ident`1 `= f ident`2 and `ident`2 `= g ident`1 which without the option would be a cause of failure of `subst`.

    Additionally, it prevents a local definition such as `ident := t` to be unfolded which otherwise it would exceptionally unfold in configurations containing hypotheses of the form `ident = u`, or `u′ = ident` with u′ not a variable. Finally, it preserves the initial order of hypotheses, which without the option it may break. The option is on by default.

`stepl term`

This tactic is for chaining rewriting steps. It assumes a goal of the form `R term term` where R is a binary relation and relies on a database of lemmas of the form `forall x y z, R x y -> eq x z -> R z y` where eq is typically a setoid equality. The application of `stepl term` then replaces the goal by `R term term` and adds a new goal stating `eq term term`.

Command `Declare Left Step term`

  Adds `term` to the database used by `stepl`.

The tactic is especially useful for parametric setoids which are not accepted as regular setoids for `rewrite` and `setoid_replace` (see Generalized rewriting).

Variant `stepl term by tactic`

  This applies `stepl term` then applies tactic to the second goal.

Variant `stepr term stepr term by tactic`

  This behaves as `stepl` but on the right-hand-side of the binary relation. Lemmas are expected to be of the form `forall x y z, R x y -> eq y z -> R x z`.

  > Command `Declare Right Step term`

  >   Adds `term` to the database used by `stepr`.

`change term`

  This tactic applies to any goal. It implements the rule `Conv` given in Subtyping rules. `change U` replaces the current goal T with U providing that U is well-formed and that T and U are convertible.

Error `Not convertible`

Variant `change term with term`

  This replaces the occurrences of `term` by `term` in the current goal. The term `term` and `term` must be convertible.

Variant `change term at num+ with term`

  This replaces the occurrences numbered `num+` of `term by term` in the current goal. The terms `term` and `term` must be convertible.

Error `Too few occurrences`

Variant `change term in ident`

Variant `change term with term in ident`

Variant `change term at num+ with term in ident`

  This applies the change tactic not to the goal but to the hypothesis `ident`.

See also: Performing computations

## Performing computations

This set of tactics implements different specialized usages of the tactic `change`.

All conversion tactics (including `change`) can be parameterized by the parts of the goal where the conversion can occur. This is done using goal clauses which consists in a list of hypotheses and, optionally, of a reference to the conclusion of the goal. For defined hypothesis it is possible to specify if the conversion should occur on the type part, the body part or both (default).

Goal clauses are written after a conversion tactic (tactics `set`, `rewrite`, `replace` and `autorewrite` also use goal clauses) and are introduced by the keyword in. If no goal clause is provided, the default is to perform the conversion only in the conclusion.

The syntax and description of the various goal clauses is the following:

- `in ident+ |-` only in hypotheses `ident+`
- `in ident+ |- *` in hypotheses `ident+` and in the conclusion
- `in * |-` in every hypothesis
- `in *` (equivalent to in `* |- *`) everywhere
- `in (type of ident) (value of ident) … |-` in type part of `ident`, in the value part of `ident`, etc.

For backward compatibility, the notation `in ident+` performs the conversion in hypotheses `ident+`.

`cbv flag*`

`lazy flag*`

`compute`

  These parameterized reduction tactics apply to any goal and perform the normalization of the goal according to the specified flags. In correspondence with the kinds of reduction considered in Coq namely \(\beta\) (reduction of functional application), \(\delta\) (unfolding of transparent constants, see Controlling the reduction strategies and the conversion algorithm), \(\iota\) (reduction of pattern-matching over a constructed term, and unfolding of `fix` and `cofix` expressions) and \(\zeta\) (contraction of local definitions), the flags are either `beta`, `delta`, `match`, `fix`, `cofix`, `iota` or `zeta`. The `iota` flag is a shorthand for `match`, `fix` and `cofix`. The `delta` flag itself can be refined into `delta qualid+` or `delta -qualid+`, restricting in the first case the constants to unfold to the constants listed, and restricting in the second case the constant to unfold to all but the ones explicitly mentioned. Notice that the `delta` flag does not apply to variables bound by a let-in construction inside the `term` itself (use here the `zeta` flag). In any cases, opaque constants are not unfolded (see Controlling the reduction strategies and the conversion algorithm).

  Normalization according to the flags is done by first evaluating the head of the expression into a weak-head normal form, i.e. until the evaluation is bloked by a variable (or an opaque constant, or an axiom), as e.g. in `x u1 … un` , or `match x with … end`, or `(fix f x {struct x} := …) x`, or is a constructed form (a \(\lambda\)-expression, a constructor, a cofixpoint, an inductive type, a product type, a sort), or is a redex that the flags prevent to reduce. Once a weak-head normal form is obtained, subterms are recursively reduced using the same strategy.

  Reduction to weak-head normal form can be done using two strategies: lazy (`lazy` tactic), or call-by-value (`cbv` tactic). The lazy strategy is a call-by-need strategy, with sharing of reductions: the arguments of a function call are weakly evaluated only when necessary, and if an argument is used several times then it is weakly computed only once. This reduction is efficient for reducing expressions with dead code. For instance, the proofs of a proposition `exists x. P(x)` reduce to a pair of a witness `t`, and a proof that `t` satisfies the predicate `P`. Most of the time, `t` may be computed without computing the proof of `P(t)`, thanks to the lazy strategy.

  The call-by-value strategy is the one used in ML languages: the arguments of a function call are systematically weakly evaluated first. Despite the lazy strategy always performs fewer reductions than the call-by-value strategy, the latter is generally more efficient for evaluating purely computational expressions (i.e. with little dead code).

Variant `compute`

Variant `cbv`

  These are synonyms for `cbv beta delta iota zeta`.

Variant `lazy`

  This is a synonym for `lazy beta delta iota zeta`.

Variant `compute qualid+`

Variant `cbv qualid+`

  These are synonyms of `cbv beta delta qualid+ iota zeta`.

Variant `compute -qualid+`

Variant `cbv -qualid+`

  These are synonyms of `cbv beta delta -qualid+ iota zeta`.

Variant `lazy qualid+`

Variant `lazy -qualid+`

  These are respectively synonyms of `lazy beta delta qualid+ iota zeta` and `lazy beta delta -qualid+ iota zeta`.

Variant `vm_compute`

  This tactic evaluates the goal using the optimized call-by-value evaluation bytecode-based virtual machine described in [GregoireL02]. This algorithm is dramatically more efficient than the algorithm used for the `cbv` tactic, but it cannot be fine-tuned. It is specially interesting for full evaluation of algebraic objects. This includes the case of reflection-based tactics.

Variant `native_compute`

  This tactic evaluates the goal by compilation to Objective Caml as described in [BDenesGregoire11]. If Coq is running in native code, it can be typically two to five times faster than `vm_compute`. Note however that the compilation cost is higher, so it is worth using only for intensive computations.

  Option `NativeCompute Profiling`

    On Linux, if you have the `perf` profiler installed, this option makes it possible to profile `native_compute` evaluations.

  Option `NativeCompute Profile Filename`

    This option specifies the profile output; the default is `native_compute_profile.data`. The actual filename used will contain extra characters to avoid overwriting an existing file; that filename is reported to the user. That means you can individually profile multiple uses of `native_compute` in a script. From the Linux command line, run `perf report` on the profile file to see the results. Consult the `perf` documentation for more details.

Option `Debug Cbv`

  This option makes `cbv` (and its derivative `compute`) print information about the constants it encounters and the unfolding decisions it makes.

`red`

  This tactic applies to a goal that has the form:

      forall (x:T1) ... (xk:Tk), t

  with `t` \(\beta\)\(\iota\)\(\zeta\)-reducing to `c t`1 `… t`n and `c` a constant. If `c` is transparent then it replaces `c` with its definition (say `t`) and then reduces `(t t`1 `… t`n `)` according to \(\beta\)\(\iota\)\(\zeta\)-reduction rules.

Error `Not reducible`

`hnf`

  This tactic applies to any goal. It replaces the current goal with its head normal form according to the \(\beta\)\(\delta\)\(\iota\)\(\zeta\)-reduction rules, i.e. it reduces the head of the goal until it becomes a product or an irreducible term. All inner \(\beta\)\(\iota\)-redexes are also reduced.

  Example: The term `forall n:nat, (plus (S n) (S n))` is not reduced by `hnf`.

Note

The \(\delta\) rule only applies to transparent constants (see Controlling the reduction strategies and the conversion algorithm on transparency and opacity).

`cbn`

`simpl`

  These tactics apply to any goal. They try to reduce a term to something still readable instead of fully normalizing it. They perform a sort of strong normalization with two key differences:

  - They unfold a constant if and only if it leads to a \(\iota\)-reduction, i.e. reducing a match or unfolding a fixpoint.
  - While reducing a constant unfolding to (co)fixpoints, the tactics use the name of the constant the (co)fixpoint comes from instead of the (co)fixpoint definition in recursive calls.

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

  The `cbn` tactic accepts the same flags as `cbv` and `lazy`. The behavior of both `simpl` and `cbn` can be tuned using the Arguments vernacular command as follows:

  - A constant can be marked to be never unfolded by `cbn` or `simpl`:

    Example

    Arguments minus n m : simpl never.

    After that command an expression like `(minus (S x) y)` is left untouched by the tactics `cbn` and `simpl`.

  - A constant can be marked to be unfolded only if applied to enough arguments. The number of arguments required can be specified using the `/` symbol in the arguments list of the `Arguments` vernacular command.

    Example

    Definition fcomp A B C f (g : A -> B) (x : A) : C := f (g x).
      fcomp is defined
    Notation “f \o g” := (fcomp f g) (at level 50).
    Arguments fcomp {A B C} f g x /.

    After that command the expression `(f \o g)` is left untouched by `simpl` while `((f \o g) t)` is reduced to `(f (g t))`. The same mechanism can be used to make a constant volatile, i.e. always unfolded.

    Example

    Definition volatile := fun x : nat => x.
      volatile is defined
    Arguments volatile / x.

  - A constant can be marked to be unfolded only if an entire set of arguments evaluates to a constructor. The `!` symbol can be used to mark such arguments.

    Example

    Arguments minus !n !m.

    After that command, the expression `(minus (S x) y)` is left untouched by `simpl`, while `(minus (S x) (S y))` is reduced to `(minus x y)`.

  - A special heuristic to determine if a constant has to be unfolded can be activated with the following command:

    Example

    Arguments minus n m : simpl nomatch.

    The heuristic avoids to perform a simplification step that would expose a match construct in head position. For example the expression `(minus (S (S x)) (S y))` is simplified to `(minus (S x) y)` even if an extra simplification is possible.

  In detail, the tactic `simpl` first applies \(\beta\)\(\iota\)-reduction. Then, it expands transparent constants and tries to reduce further using \(\beta\)\(\iota\)- reduction. But, when no \(\iota\) rule is applied after unfolding then \(\delta\)-reductions are not applied. For instance trying to use `simpl` on `(plus n O) = n` changes nothing.

  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 the main difference between `simpl` and `cbn`. The tactic `cbn` reduces whenever it will be able to reuse it or not: `succ t` is reduced to `S t`.

Variant `cbn qualid+`

Variant `cbn -qualid+`

  These are respectively synonyms of `cbn beta delta qualid+ iota zeta` and `cbn beta delta -qualid+ iota zeta` (see `cbn`).

Variant `simpl pattern`

  This applies `simpl` only to the subterms matching `pattern` in the current goal.

Variant `simpl pattern at num+`

  This applies `simpl` only to the `num+` occurrences of the subterms matching `pattern` in the current goal.

  Error `Too few occurrences`

Variant `simpl qualid`

Variant `simpl string`

  This applies `simpl` only to the applicative subterms whose head occurrence is the unfoldable constant `qualid` (the constant can be referred to by its notation using `string` if such a notation exists).

Variant `simpl qualid at num+`

Variant `simpl string at num+`

  This applies `simpl` only to the `num+` applicative subterms whose head occurrence is `qualid` (or `string`).

Option `Debug RAKAM`

  This option makes `cbn` print various debugging information. `RAKAM` is the Refolding Algebraic Krivine Abstract Machine.

`unfold qualid`

  This tactic applies to any goal. The argument qualid must denote a defined transparent constant or local definition (see Definitions and Controlling the reduction strategies and the conversion algorithm). The tactic `unfold` applies the \(\delta\) rule to each occurrence of the constant to which `qualid` refers in the current goal and then replaces it with its \(\beta\)\(\iota\)-normal form.

Error `qualid does not denote an evaluable constant`

Variant `unfold qualid in ident`

  Replaces `qualid` in hypothesis `ident` with its definition and replaces the hypothesis with its \(\beta\)\(\iota\) normal form.

Variant `unfold qualid+,`

  Replaces simultaneously `qualid+,` with their definitions and replaces the current goal with its \(\beta\)\(\iota\) normal form.

Variant `unfold qualid at num+,+,`

  The lists `num+,` specify the occurrences of `qualid` to be unfolded. Occurrences are located from left to right.

  Error `bad occurrence number of qualid`
  Error `qualid does not occur`

Variant `unfold string`

  If `string` denotes the discriminating symbol of a notation (e.g. “+”) or an expression defining a notation (e.g. “_ + _”), and this notation refers to an unfoldable constant, then the tactic unfolds it.

Variant `unfold string%key`

  This is variant of `unfold string` where `string` gets its interpretation from the scope bound to the delimiting key `key` instead of its default interpretation (see Local interpretation rules for notations).

Variant `unfold qualid_or_string at num+,+,`

  This is the most general form, where `qualid_or_string` is either a `qualid` or a `string` referring to a notation.

`fold term`

  This tactic applies to any goal. The term `term` is reduced using the `red` tactic. Every occurrence of the resulting `term` in the goal is then replaced by `term`.

Variant `fold term+`

  Equivalent to `fold term ; … ; fold term`.

`pattern term`

  This command applies to any goal. The argument `term` must be a free subterm of the current goal. The command pattern performs \(\beta\)-expansion (the inverse of \(\beta\)-reduction) of the current goal (say `T`) by

  - replacing all occurrences of `term` in `T` with a fresh variable
  - abstracting this variable
  - applying the abstracted goal to `term`

  For instance, if the current goal `T` is expressible as \(\varphi\)`(t)` where the notation captures all the instances of `t` in \(\varphi\)`(t)`, then `pattern t` transforms it into `(fun x:A =>` \(\varphi\)`(x)) t`. This command can be used, for instance, when the tactic `apply` fails on matching.

Variant `pattern term at num+`

  Only the occurrences `num+` of `term` are considered for \(\beta\)-expansion. Occurrences are located from left to right.

Variant `pattern term at - num+`

  All occurrences except the occurrences of indexes `num+` of `term` are considered for \(\beta\)-expansion. Occurrences are located from left to right.

Variant `pattern term+,`

  Starting from a goal \(\varphi\)`(t`1 `… t`m`)`, the tactic `pattern t`1`, …, t`m generates the equivalent goal `(fun (x`1`:A`1`) … (x`m `:A`m `) =>`\(\varphi\)`(x`1 `… x`m `)) t`1 `… t`m. If `t`i occurs in one of the generated types `A`j these occurrences will also be considered and possibly abstracted.

Variant `pattern term at num++,`

  This behaves as above but processing only the occurrences `num+` of `term` starting from `term`.

Variant `pattern term at -? num+,?+,`

  This is the most general syntax that combines the different variants.

### Conversion tactics applied to hypotheses

`conv_tactic in ident+,`

  Applies the conversion tactic `conv_tactic` to the hypotheses `ident+`. The tactic `conv_tactic` is any of the conversion tactics listed in this section.

  If `ident` is a local definition, then `ident` can be replaced by (Type of `ident`) to address not the body but the type of the local definition.

  Example: `unfold not in (Type of H1) (Type of H3)`.

Error `No such hypothesis : ident.`

## Automation

`auto`

This tactic implements a Prolog-like resolution procedure to solve the current goal. It first tries to solve the goal using the assumption tactic, then it reduces the goal to an atomic one using intros and introduces the newly generated hypotheses as hints. Then it looks at the list of tactics associated to the head symbol of the goal and tries to apply one of them (starting from the tactics with lower cost). This process is recursively applied to the generated subgoals.

By default, auto only uses the hypotheses of the current goal and the hints of the database named core.

Variant `auto num`

  Forces the search depth to be `num`. The maximal search depth is 5 by default.

Variant `auto with ident+`

  Uses the hint databases `ident+` in addition to the database core. See The Hints Databases for auto and eauto for the list of pre-defined databases and the way to create or extend a database.

Variant `auto with *`

  Uses all existing hint databases. See The Hints Databases for auto and eauto

Variant `auto using lemma+`

  Uses `lemma+` in addition to hints (can be combined with the with `ident` option). If `lemma` is an inductive type, it is the collection of its constructors which is added as hints.

Variant `info_auto`

  Behaves like auto but shows the tactics it uses to solve the goal. This variant is very useful for getting a better understanding of automation, or to know what lemmas/assumptions were used.

Variant `debug auto`

  Behaves like `auto` but shows the tactics it tries to solve the goal, including failing paths.

Variant `info_?auto num? using lemma+? with ident+?`

  This is the most general form, combining the various options.

Variant `trivial`

  This tactic is a restriction of auto that is not recursive and tries only hints that cost 0. Typically it solves trivial equalities like `X=X`.

Variant `trivial with ident+`

Variant `trivial with *`

Variant `trivial using lemma+`

Variant `debug trivial`

Variant `info_trivial`

Variant `info_?trivial using lemma+? with ident+?`

Note

`auto` either solves completely the goal or else leaves it intact. `auto` and `trivial` never fail.

The following options enable printing of informative or debug information for the `auto` and `trivial` tactics:

Option `Info Auto`

Option `Debug Auto`

Option `Info Trivial`

Option `Debug Trivial`

See also: The Hints Databases for auto and eauto

`eauto`

This tactic generalizes `auto`. While `auto` does not try resolution hints which would leave existential variables in the goal, `eauto` does try them (informally speaking, it usessimple `eapply` where `auto` uses simple `apply`). As a consequence, `eauto` can solve such a goal:

Example

Hint Resolve ex_intro.
  the hint: eapply ex_intro will only be used by eauto
Goal forall P: nat -> Prop, P 0 -> exists n, P n.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall P : nat -> Prop, P 0 -> exists n : nat, P n
eauto.
  No more subgoals.

Note that `ex_intro` should be declared as a hint.

Variant `info_?eauto num? using lemma+? with ident+?`

  The various options for eauto are the same as for auto.

`eauto` also obeys the following options:

Option `Info Eauto`

Option `Debug Eauto`

See also: The Hints Databases for auto and eauto

`autounfold with ident+`

This tactic unfolds constants that were declared through a `Hint Unfold` in the given databases.

Variant `autounfold with ident+ in clause`

  Performs the unfolding in the given clause.

Variant `autounfold with *`

  Uses the unfold hints declared in all the hint databases.

`autorewrite with ident+`

This tactic [4] carries out rewritings according the rewriting rule bases `ident+`.

Each rewriting rule of a base `ident` is applied to the main subgoal until it fails. Once all the rules have been processed, if the main subgoal has progressed (e.g., if it is distinct from the initial main goal) then the rules of this base are processed again. If the main subgoal has not progressed then the next base is processed. For the bases, the behavior is exactly similar to the processing of the rewriting rules.

The rewriting rule bases are built with the `Hint Rewrite vernacular` command.

Warning `This tactic may loop if you build non terminating rewriting systems.`

Variant `autorewrite with ident+ using tactic`

  Performs, in the same way, all the rewritings of the bases `ident+` applying tactic to the main subgoal after each rewriting step.

Variant `autorewrite with ident+ in qualid`

  Performs all the rewritings in hypothesis `qualid`.

Variant `autorewrite with ident+ in qualid using tactic`

  Performs all the rewritings in hypothesis `qualid` applying `tactic` to the main subgoal after each rewriting step.

Variant `autorewrite with ident+ in clause`

  Performs all the rewriting in the clause `clause`. The clause argument must not contain any `type of` nor `value of`.

See also: Hint-Rewrite for feeding the database of lemmas used by `autorewrite`.

See also: `autorewrite` for examples showing the use of this tactic.

`easy`

  This tactic tries to solve the current goal by a number of standard closing steps. In particular, it tries to close the current goal using the closing tactics `trivial`, reflexivity, symmetry, contradiction and inversion of hypothesis. If this fails, it tries introducing variables and splitting and-hypotheses, using the closing tactics afterwards, and splitting the goal using `split` and recursing.

  This tactic solves goals that belong to many common classes; in particular, many cases of unsatisfiable hypotheses, and simple equality goals are usually solved by this tactic.

Variant `now tactic`

  Run `tac` followed by `easy`. This is a notation for `tactic; easy`.

## Controlling automation

### The hints databases for auto and eauto

The hints for `auto` and `eauto` are stored in databases. Each database maps head symbols to a list of hints. One can use the command

Command `Print Hint ident`

to display the hints associated to the head symbol `ident` (see Print Hint). Each hint has a cost that is a nonnegative integer, and an optional pattern. The hints with lower cost are tried first. A hint is tried by `auto` when the conclusion of the current goal matches its pattern or when it has no pattern.

#### Creating Hint databases

One can optionally declare a hint database using the command `Create HintDb`. If a hint is added to an unknown database, it will be automatically created.

Command `Create HintDb ident discriminated?.`

This command creates a new database named `ident`. The database is implemented by a Discrimination Tree (DT) that serves as an index of all the lemmas. The DT can use transparency information to decide if a constant should be indexed or not (c.f. The hints databases for auto and eauto), making the retrieval more efficient. The legacy implementation (the default one for new databases) uses the DT only on goals without existentials (i.e., `auto` goals), for non-Immediate hints and do not make use of transparency hints, putting more work on the unification that is run after retrieval (it keeps a list of the lemmas in case the DT is not used). The new implementation enabled by the discriminated option makes use of DTs in all cases and takes transparency information into account. However, the order in which hints are retrieved from the DT may differ from the order in which they were inserted, making this implementation observationally different from the legacy one.

The general command to add a hint to some databases `ident+` is

Command `Hint hint_definition : ident+`
  Variant `Hint hint_definition`

    No database name is given: the hint is registered in the core database.

  Variant `Local Hint hint_definition : ident+`

    This is used to declare hints that must not be exported to the other modules that require and import the current module. Inside a section, the option Local is useless since hints do not survive anyway to the closure of sections.

  Variant `Local Hint hint_definition`

    Idem for the core database.

  Variant `Hint Resolve term | num? pattern??`

  This command adds `simple apply term` to the hint list with the head symbol of the type of `term`. The cost of that hint is the number of subgoals generated by `simple apply term` or `num` if specified. The associated `pattern` is inferred from the conclusion of the type of `term` or the given `pattern` if specified. In case the inferred type of `term` does not start with a product the tactic added in the hint list is `exact term`. In case this type can however be reduced to a type starting with a product, the tactic `simple apply term` is also stored in the hints list. If the inferred type of `term` contains a dependent quantification on a variable which occurs only in the premisses of the type and not in its conclusion, no instance could be inferred for the variable by unification with the goal. In this case, the hint is added to the hint list of `eauto` instead of the hint list of auto and a warning is printed. A typical example of a hint that is used only by `eauto` is a transitivity lemma.

  Error `term cannot be used as a hint`

    The head symbol of the type of `term` is a bound variable such that this tactic cannot be associated to a constant.

  Variant `Hint Resolve term+`

    Adds each `Hint Resolve term`.

  Variant `Hint Resolve -> term`

    Adds the left-to-right implication of an equivalence as a hint (informally the hint will be used as `apply <- term`, although as mentionned before, the tactic actually used is a restricted version of `apply`).

  Variant `Resolve <- term`

    Adds the right-to-left implication of an equivalence as a hint.

  Variant `Hint Immediate term`

    This command adds `simple apply term; trivial` to the hint list associated with the head symbol of the type of `ident` in the given database. This tactic will fail if all the subgoals generated by `simple apply term` are not solved immediately by the `trivial` tactic (which only tries tactics with cost 0).This command is useful for theorems such as the symmetry of equality or `n+1=m+1 -> n=m` that we may like to introduce with a limited use in order to avoid useless proof-search. The cost of this tactic (which never generates subgoals) is always 1, so that it is not used by `trivial` itself.

  Error `term cannot be used as a hint`
  Variant `Immediate term+`

    Adds each `Hint Immediate term`.

  Variant `Hint Constructors ident`

    If `ident` is an inductive type, this command adds all its constructors as hints of type `Resolve`. Then, when the conclusion of current goal has the form `(ident …)`, `auto` will try to apply each constructor.

  Error `ident is not an inductive type`
  Variant `Hint Constructors ident+`

    Adds each `Hint Constructors ident`.

  Variant `Hint Unfold qualid`

    This adds the tactic `unfold qualid` to the hint list that will only be used when the head constant of the goal is `ident`. Its cost is 4.

  Variant `Hint Unfold ident+`

    Adds each `Hint Unfold ident`.

  Variant `Hint ( Transparent | Opaque ) qualid`
  Variant `:name: Hint ( Transparent | Opaque )`

    > This adds a transparency hint to the database, making `qualid` a transparent or opaque constant during resolution. This information is used during unification of the goal with any lemma in the database and inside the discrimination network to relax or constrain it in the case of discriminated databases.

    Variant `Hint %(Transparent | Opaque) ident+`

      Declares each `ident` as a transparent or opaque constant.

    Variant `Hint Extern num pattern? => tactic`

      This hint type is to extend `auto` with tactics other than `apply` and `unfold`. For that, we must specify a cost, an optional `pattern` and a `tactic` to execute.

      Example

      Hint Extern 4 (~(_ = _)) => discriminate.

      Now, when the head of the goal is a disequality, `auto` will try discriminate if it does not manage to solve the goal with hints with a cost less than 4. One can even use some sub-patterns of the pattern in the tactic script. A sub-pattern is a question mark followed by an identifier, like `?X1` or `?X2`. Here is an example:

      Example

      Require Import List.
      Hint Extern 5 ({?X1 = ?X2} + {?X1 <> ?X2}) => generalize X1, X2; decide equality : eqdec.
      Goal forall a b: list (nat * nat), {a = b} + {a <> b}.
        1 subgoal ============================ forall a b : list (nat * nat), {a = b} + {a <> b}
      Info 1 auto with eqdec.
        <ltac_plugin::auto@0> eqdec No more subgoals.
    Variant `Hint Cut regexp`

      Warning

      These hints currently only apply to typeclass proof search and the `typeclasses eauto` tactic.

      This command can be used to cut the proof-search tree according to a regular expression matching paths to be cut. The grammar for regular expressions is the following. Beware, there is no operator precedence during parsing, one can check with `Print HintDb` to verify the current cut expression:

          e ::=  ident      hint or instance identifier
                |_         any hint
                | e\|e′     disjunction
                | e e′      sequence
                | e *       Kleene star
                | emp       empty
                | eps       epsilon
                | ( e  )

      The emp regexp does not match any search path while eps matches the empty path. During proof search, the path of successive successful hints on a search branch is recorded, as a list of identifiers for the hints (note Hint Extern’s do not have an associated identifier). Before applying any hint `ident` the current path p extended with `ident` is matched against the current cut expression c associated to the hint database. If matching succeeds, the hint is not applied. The semantics of `Hint Cut e` is to set the cut expression to `c | e`, the initial cut expression being emp.

    Variant `Hint Mode qualid (+ | ! | -)*`

      This sets an optional mode of use of the identifier `qualid`. When proof-search faces a goal that ends in an application of `qualid` to arguments `term … term`, the mode tells if the hints associated to `qualid` can be applied or not. A mode specification is a list of n `+`, `!` or `-` items that specify if an argument of the identifier is to be treated as an input (`+`), if its head only is an input (`!`) or an output (`-`) of the identifier. For a mode to match a list of arguments, input terms and input heads must not contain existential variables or be existential variables respectively, while outputs can be any term. Multiple modes can be declared for a single identifier, in that case only one mode needs to match the arguments for the hints to be applied.The head of a term is understood here as the applicative head, or the match or projection scrutinee’s head, recursively, casts being ignored. `Hint Mode` is especially useful for typeclasses, when one does not want to support default instances and avoid ambiguity in general. Setting a parameter of a class as an input forces proof-search to be driven by that index of the class, with `!` giving more flexibility by allowing existentials to still appear deeper in the index but not at its head.

    Note

    One can use an `Extern` hint with no pattern to do pattern-matching on hypotheses using `match goal` with inside the tactic.

### Hint databases defined in the Coq standard library

Several hint databases are defined in the Coq standard library. The actual content of a database is the collection of the hints declared to belong to this database in each of the various modules currently loaded. Especially, requiring new modules potentially extend a database. At Coq startup, only the core database is non empty and can be used.

core: | This special database is automatically used by `auto`, except when pseudo-database `nocore` is given to `auto`. The core database contains only basic lemmas about negation, conjunction, and so on from. Most of the hints in this database come from the Init and Logic directories.
arith: | This database contains all lemmas about Peano’s arithmetic proved in the directories Init and Arith.
zarith: | contains lemmas about binary signed integers from the directories theories/ZArith. When required, the module Omega also extends the database zarith with a high-cost hint that calls `omega` on equations and inequalities in nat or Z.
bool: | contains lemmas about booleans, mostly from directory theories/Bool.
datatypes: | is for lemmas about lists, streams and so on that are mainly proved in the Lists subdirectory.
sets: | contains lemmas about sets and relations from the directories Sets and Relations.
typeclass_instances:
| contains all the type class instances declared in the environment, including those used for `setoid_rewrite`, from the Classes directory.

You are advised not to put your own hints in the core database, but use one or several databases specific to your development.

Command `Remove Hints term+ : ident+`

This command removes the hints associated to terms `term+` in databases `ident+`.

Command `Print Hint`

This command displays all hints that apply to the current goal. It fails if no proof is being edited, while the two variants can be used at every moment.

Variants:

Command `Print Hint ident`

  This command displays only tactics associated with `ident` in the hints list. This is independent of the goal being edited, so this command will not fail if no goal is being edited.

Command `Print Hint *`

  This command displays all declared hints.

Command `Print HintDb ident`

  This command displays all hints from database `ident`.

Command `Hint Rewrite term+ : ident+`

  This vernacular command adds the terms `term+` (their types must be equalities) in the rewriting bases `ident+` with the default orientation (left to right). Notice that the rewriting bases are distinct from the `auto` hint bases and thatauto does not take them into account.

  This command is synchronous with the section mechanism (see Section mechanism): when closing a section, all aliases created by `Hint Rewrite` in that section are lost. Conversely, when loading a module, all `Hint Rewrite` declarations at the global level of that module are loaded.

Variants:

Command `Hint Rewrite -> term+ : ident+`

  This is strictly equivalent to the command above (we only make explicit the orientation which otherwise defaults to ->).

Command `Hint Rewrite <- term+ : ident+`

  Adds the rewriting rules `term+` with a right-to-left orientation in the bases `ident+`.

Command `Hint Rewrite term+ using tactic : ident+`

  When the rewriting rules `term+` in `ident+` will be used, the tactic `tactic` will be applied to the generated subgoals, the main subgoal excluded.

Command `Print Rewrite HintDb ident`

  This command displays all rewrite hints contained in `ident`.

### Hint locality

Hints provided by the `Hint` commands are erased when closing a section. Conversely, all hints of a module `A` that are not defined inside a section (and not defined with option `Local`) become available when the module `A` is imported (using e.g. `Require Import A.`).

As of today, hints only have a binary behavior regarding locality, as described above: either they disappear at the end of a section scope, or they remain global forever. This causes a scalability issue, because hints coming from an unrelated part of the code may badly influence another development. It can be mitigated to some extent thanks to the `Remove Hints` command (see Remove Hints), but this is a mere workaround and has some limitations (for instance, external hints cannot be removed).

A proper way to fix this issue is to bind the hints to their module scope, as for most of the other objects Coq uses. Hints should only made available when the module they are defined in is imported, not just required. It is very difficult to change the historical behavior, as it would break a lot of scripts. We propose a smooth transitional path by providing the `Loose Hint Behavior` option which accepts three flags allowing for a fine-grained handling of non-imported hints.

Option `Loose Hint Behavior ( “Lax” | “Warn” | “Strict” )`

  This option accepts three values, which control the behavior of hints w.r.t. `Import`:

  - “Lax”: this is the default, and corresponds to the historical behavior, that is, hints defined outside of a section have a global scope.
  - “Warn”: outputs a warning when a non-imported hint is used. Note that this is an over-approximation, because a hint may be triggered by a run that will eventually fail and backtrack, resulting in the hint not being actually useful for the proof.
  - “Strict”: changes the behavior of an unloaded hint to a immediate fail tactic, allowing to emulate an import-scoped hint mechanism.

### Setting implicit automation tactics

Command `Proof with tactic`

  This command may be used to start a proof. It defines a default tactic to be used each time a tactic command `tactic`1 is ended by `...`. In this case the tactic command typed by the user is equivalent to `tactic`1 `;tactic`.

  See also: `Proof.` in Switching on/off the proof editing mode.

  Variant `Proof with tactic using ident+`

    Combines in a single line `Proof with` and `Proof using`, see Switching on/off the proof editing mode

  Variant `Proof using ident+ with tactic`

    Combines in a single line `Proof with` and `Proof using`, see Switching on/off the proof editing mode

  Command `Declare Implicit Tactic tactic`

    This command declares a tactic to be used to solve implicit arguments that Coq does not know how to solve by unification. It is used every time the term argument of a tactic has one of its holes not fully resolved.

  Example

  Parameter quo : nat -> forall n: nat, n<>0 -> nat.
    quo is declared
  Notation “x // y” := (quo x y _) (at level 40).
  Declare Implicit Tactic assumption.
  Goal forall n m, m<>0 -> { q: nat & { r | q * m + r = n } }.
    quo is declared 1 subgoal ============================ forall n m : nat, m <> 0 -> {q : nat & {r : nat | q * m + r = n}}
  intros.
    1 subgoal n, m : nat H : m <> 0 ============================ {q : nat & {r : nat | q * m + r = n}}
  exists (n // m).
    1 subgoal n, m : nat H : m <> 0 ============================ {r : nat | n // m * m + r = n}

  The tactic `exists (n // m)` did not fail. The hole was solved by `assumption` so that it behaved as `exists (quo n m H)`.

## Decision procedures

`tauto`

This tactic implements a decision procedure for intuitionistic propositional calculus based on the contraction-free sequent calculi LJT* of Roy Dyckhoff [Dyc92]. Note that `tauto` succeeds on any instance of an intuitionistic tautological proposition. `tauto` unfolds negations and logical equivalence but does not unfold any other definition.

The following goal can be proved by `tauto` whereas `auto` would fail:

Example

Goal forall (x: nat) (P: nat -> Prop), x = 0 \/ P x -> x <> 0 -> P x.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall (x : nat) (P : nat -> Prop), x = 0 \/ P x -> x <> 0 -> P x
intros.
  1 subgoal x : nat P : nat -> Prop H : x = 0 \/ P x H0 : x <> 0 ============================ P x
tauto.
  No more subgoals.

Moreover, if it has nothing else to do, `tauto` performs introductions. Therefore, the use of `intros` in the previous proof is unnecessary. `tauto` can for instance for:

Example

Goal forall (A: Prop) (P: nat -> Prop), A \/ (forall x: nat, ~ A -> P x) -> forall x: nat, ~ A -> P x.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall (A : Prop) (P : nat -> Prop), A \/ (forall x : nat, ~ A -> P x) -> forall x : nat, ~ A -> P x
tauto.
  No more subgoals.

Note

In contrast, `tauto` cannot solve the following goal `Goal forall (A:Prop) (P:nat -> Prop), A \/ (forall x:nat, ~ A -> P x) ->` `forall x:nat, ~ ~ (A \/ P x).` because `(forall x:nat, ~ A -> P x)` cannot be treated as atomic and an instantiation of x is necessary.

Variant `dtauto`

  While `tauto` recognizes inductively defined connectives isomorphic to the standard connective `and, prod, or, sum, False, Empty_set, unit, True`, `dtauto` recognizes also all inductive types with one constructors and no indices, i.e. record-style connectives.

`intuition tactic`

The tactic `intuition` takes advantage of the search-tree built by the decision procedure involved in the tactic `tauto`. It uses this information to generate a set of subgoals equivalent to the original one (but simpler than it) and applies the tactic `tactic` to them [Mun94]. If this tactic fails on some goals then `intuition` fails. In fact, `tauto` is simply `intuition fail`.

For instance, the tactic `intuition auto` applied to the goal

    (forall (x:nat), P x)/\B -> (forall (y:nat),P y)/\ P O \/B/\ P O

internally replaces it by the equivalent one:

    (forall (x:nat), P x), B |- P O

and then uses `auto` which completes the proof.

Originally due to César Muñoz, these tactics (`tauto` and `intuition`) have been completely re-engineered by David Delahaye using mainly the tactic language (see The tactic language). The code is now much shorter and a significant increase in performance has been noticed. The general behavior with respect to dependent types, unfolding and introductions has slightly changed to get clearer semantics. This may lead to some incompatibilities.

Variant `intuition`

  Is equivalent to `intuition auto with *`.

Variant `dintuition`

  While `intuition` recognizes inductively defined connectives isomorphic to the standard connective `and, prod, or, sum, False, Empty_set, unit, True`, `dintuition` recognizes also all inductive types with one constructors and no indices, i.e. record-style connectives.

Option `Intuition Negation Unfolding`

  Controls whether `intuition` unfolds inner negations which do not need to be unfolded. This option is on by default.

`rtauto`

The `rtauto` tactic solves propositional tautologies similarly to what `tauto` does. The main difference is that the proof term is built using a reflection scheme applied to a sequent calculus proof of the goal. The search procedure is also implemented using a different technique.

Users should be aware that this difference may result in faster proof- search but slower proof-checking, and `rtauto` might not solve goals that `tauto` would be able to solve (e.g. goals involving universal quantifiers).

`firstorder`

The tactic `firstorder` is an experimental extension of `tauto` to first- order reasoning, written by Pierre Corbineau. It is not restricted to usual logical connectives but instead may reason about any first-order class inductive definition.

Option `Firstorder Solver`

  The default tactic used by `firstorder` when no rule applies is `auto with *`, it can be reset locally or globally using this option and printed using `Print Firstorder Solver`.

Variant `firstorder tactic`

  Tries to solve the goal with `tactic` when no logical rule may apply.

Variant `firstorder using qualid+`

  Adds lemmas `qualid+` to the proof-search environment. If `qualid` refers to an inductive type, it is the collection of its constructors which are added to the proof-search environment.

Variant `firstorder with ident+`

  Adds lemmas from `auto` hint bases `ident+` to the proof-search environment.

Variant `firstorder tactic using qualid+ with ident+`

  This combines the effects of the different variants of `firstorder`.

Option `Firstorder Depth natural`

  This option controls the proof-search depth bound.

`congruence`

The tactic `congruence`, by Pierre Corbineau, implements the standard Nelson and Oppen congruence closure algorithm, which is a decision procedure for ground equalities with uninterpreted symbols. It also include the constructor theory (see `injection` and `discriminate`). If the goal is a non-quantified equality, congruence tries to prove it with non-quantified equalities in the context. Otherwise it tries to infer a discriminable equality from those in the context. Alternatively, congruence tries to prove that a hypothesis is equal to the goal or to the negation of another hypothesis.

`congruence` is also able to take advantage of hypotheses stating quantified equalities, you have to provide a bound for the number of extra equalities generated that way. Please note that one of the members of the equality must contain all the quantified variables in order for congruence to match against it.

Example

Theorem T (A: Type) (f: A -> A) (g: A -> A -> A) a b: a=(f a) -> (g b (f a))=(f (f a)) -> (g a b)=(f (g b a)) -> (g a b)=a.
  1 subgoal A : Type f : A -> A g : A -> A -> A a, b : A ============================ a = f a -> g b (f a) = f (f a) -> g a b = f (g b a) -> g a b = a
intros.
  1 subgoal A : Type f : A -> A g : A -> A -> A a, b : A H : a = f a H0 : g b (f a) = f (f a) H1 : g a b = f (g b a) ============================ g a b = a
congruence.
  No more subgoals.
Qed.
  T is defined
Theorem inj (A: Type) (f: A -> A * A) (a c d: A) : f = pair a -> Some (f c) = Some (f d) -> c=d.
  1 subgoal A : Type f : A -> A * A a, c, d : A ============================ f = pair a -> Some (f c) = Some (f d) -> c = d
intros.
  1 subgoal A : Type f : A -> A * A a, c, d : A H : f = pair a H0 : Some (f c) = Some (f d) ============================ c = d
congruence.
  No more subgoals.
Qed.
  inj is defined

Variant `congruence n`

  Tries to add at most n instances of hypotheses stating quantified equalities to the problem in order to solve it. A bigger value of n does not make success slower, only failure. You might consider adding some lemmas as hypotheses using assert in order for `congruence` to use them.

Variant `congruence with term+`

  Adds `term+` to the pool of terms used by `congruence`. This helps in case you have partially applied constructors in your goal.

Error `I don’t know how to handle dependent equality`

  The decision procedure managed to find a proof of the goal or of a discriminable equality but this proof could not be built in Coq because of dependently-typed functions.

Error `Goal is solvable by congruence but some arguments are missing. Try congruence with …, replacing metavariables by arbitrary terms.`

  The decision procedure could solve the goal with the provision that additional arguments are supplied for some partially applied constructors. Any term of an appropriate type will allow the tactic to successfully solve the goal. Those additional arguments can be given to congruence by filling in the holes in the terms given in the error message, using the with variant described above.

Option `Congruence Verbose`

  This option makes `congruence` print debug information.

## Checking properties of terms

Each of the following tactics acts as the identity if the check succeeds, and results in an error otherwise.

`constr_eq term term`

  This tactic checks whether its arguments are equal modulo alpha conversion and casts.

Error `Not equal`

`unify term term`

  This tactic checks whether its arguments are unifiable, potentially instantiating existential variables.

Error `Not unifiable`

Variant `unify term term with ident`

  Unification takes the transparency information defined in the hint database `ident` into account (see the hints databases for auto and eauto).

`is_evar term`

  This tactic checks whether its argument is a current existential variable. Existential variables are uninstantiated variables generated by `eapply` and some other tactics.

Error `Not an evar`

`has_evar term`

  This tactic checks whether its argument has an existential variable as a subterm. Unlike context patterns combined with `is_evar`, this tactic scans all subterms, including those under binders.

Error `No evars`

`is_var term`

  This tactic checks whether its argument is a variable or hypothesis in the current goal context or in the opened sections.

Error `Not a variable or hypothesis`

## Equality

`f_equal`

This tactic applies to a goal of the form `f a`1 `… a`n `= f′a′`1 `… a′`n. Using `f_equal` on such a goal leads to subgoals `f=f′` and `a`1 = `a′`1 and so on up to `a`n `= a′`n. Amongst these subgoals, the simple ones (e.g. provable by `reflexivity` or `congruence`) are automatically solved by `f_equal`.

`reflexivity`

This tactic applies to a goal that has the form `t=u`. It checks that t and u are convertible and then solves the goal. It is equivalent to apply `refl_equal`.

Error `The conclusion is not a substitutive equation`

Error `Unable to unify … with …`

`symmetry`

This tactic applies to a goal that has the form `t=u` and changes it into `u=t`.

Variant `symmetry in ident`

  If the statement of the hypothesis ident has the form `t=u`, the tactic changes it to `u=t`.

`transitivity term`

This tactic applies to a goal that has the form `t=u` and transforms it into the two subgoals `t=term` and `term=u`.

## Equality and inductive sets

We describe in this section some special purpose tactics dealing with equality and inductive sets or types. These tactics use the equality `eq:forall (A:Type), A->A->Prop`, simply written with the infix symbol `=`.

`decide equality`

  This tactic solves a goal of the form `forall x y:R, {x=y}+{ ~x=y}`, where `R` is an inductive type such that its constructors do not take proofs or functions as arguments, nor objects in dependent types. It solves goals of the form `{x=y}+{ ~x=y}` as well.

`compare term term`

  This tactic compares two given objects `term` and `term` of an inductive datatype. If `G` is the current goal, it leaves the sub- goals `term =term -> G` and `~ term = term -> G`. The type of `term` and `term` must satisfy the same restrictions as in the tactic `decide equality`.

`simplify_eq term`

  Let `term` be the proof of a statement of conclusion `term = term`. If `term` and `term` are structurally different (in the sense described for the tactic `discriminate`), then the tactic `simplify_eq` behaves as `discriminate term`, otherwise it behaves as `injection term`.

Note

If some quantified hypothesis of the goal is named `ident`, then `simplify_eq ident` first introduces the hypothesis in the local context using `intros until ident`.

Variant `simplify_eq num`

  This does the same thing as `intros until num` then `simplify_eq ident` where `ident` is the identifier for the last introduced hypothesis.

Variant `simplify_eq term with bindings_list`

  This does the same as `simplify_eq term` but using the given bindings to instantiate parameters or hypotheses of `term`.

Variant `esimplify_eq num`

Variant `esimplify_eq term with bindings_list?`

  This works the same as `simplify_eq` but if the type of `term`, or the type of the hypothesis referred to by `num`, has uninstantiated parameters, these parameters are left as existential variables.

Variant `simplify_eq`

  If the current goal has form `t1 <> t2`, it behaves as `intro ident; simplify_eq ident`.

`dependent rewrite -> ident`

  This tactic applies to any goal. If `ident` has type `(existT B a b)=(existT B a’ b’)` in the local context (i.e. each `term` of the equality has a sigma type `{ a:A & (B a)}`) this tactic rewrites `a` into `a’` and `b` into `b’` in the current goal. This tactic works even if `B` is also a sigma type. This kind of equalities between dependent pairs may be derived by the `injection` and `inversion` tactics.

Variant `dependent rewrite <- ident`

  Analogous to `dependent rewrite ->` but uses the equality from right to left.

## Inversion

`functional inversion ident`

`functional inversion` is a tactic that performs inversion on hypothesis `ident` of the form `qualid term+ = term` or `term = qualid term+` where `qualid` must have been defined using Function (see Advanced recursive functions). Note that this tactic is only available after a `Require Import FunInd`.

Error `Hypothesis ident must contain at least one Function`

Error `Cannot find inversion information for hypothesis ident`

  This error may be raised when some inversion lemma failed to be generated by Function.

Variant `functional inversion num`

  This does the same thing as intros until num thenfunctional inversion ident where ident is the identifier for the last introduced hypothesis.

Variant `functional inversion ident qualid`

Variant `functional inversion num qualid`

  If the hypothesis `ident` (or `num`) has a type of the form `qualid`1 `term`1 … `term`n `= qualid`2 `term`n+1 … `term`n+m where `qualid`1 and `qualid`2 are valid candidates to functional inversion, this variant allows choosing which `qualid` is inverted.

`quote ident`

This kind of inversion has nothing to do with the tactic `inversion` above. This tactic does `change (@ident t)`, where t is a term built in order to ensure the convertibility. In other words, it does inversion of the function `ident`. This function must be a fixpoint on a simple recursive datatype: see quote for the full details.

Error `quote: not a simple fixpoint`

  Happens when quote is not able to perform inversion properly.

Variant `quote ident ident*`

  All terms that are built only with `ident*` will be considered by quote as constants rather than variables.

## Classical tactics

In order to ease the proving process, when the Classical module is loaded. A few more tactics are available. Make sure to load the module using the `Require Import` command.

`classical_left`

Variant `classical_right`

  The tactics `classical_left` and `classical_right` are the analog of the left and right but using classical logic. They can only be used for disjunctions. Use `classical_left` to prove the left part of the disjunction with the assumption that the negation of right part holds. Use `classical_right` to prove the right part of the disjunction with the assumption that the negation of left part holds.

## Automatizing

`btauto`

The tactic `btauto` implements a reflexive solver for boolean tautologies. It solves goals of the form `t = u` where t and u are constructed over the following grammar:

>     t ::=  x
>           ∣ true
>           ∣ false
>           ∣ orb t1 t2
>           ∣ andb t1 t2
>           ∣ xorb t1 t2
>           ∣ negb t
>           ∣ if t1 then t2 else t3

> Whenever the formula supplied is not a tautology, it also provides a counter-example.

> Internally, it uses a system very similar to the one of the ring tactic.

`omega`

The tactic `omega`, due to Pierre Crégut, is an automatic decision procedure for Presburger arithmetic. It solves quantifier-free formulas built with ~, /, /`, `-> on top of equalities, inequalities and disequalities on both the type `nat` of natural numbers and `Z` of binary integers. This tactic must be loaded by the command `Require Import Omega`. See the additional documentation about omega (see Chapter Omega: a solver for quantifier-free problems in Presburger Arithmetic).

`ring`

`ring_simplify term+`

The `ring` tactic solves equations upon polynomial expressions of a ring (or semi-ring) structure. It proceeds by normalizing both hand sides of the equation (w.r.t. associativity, commutativity and distributivity, constant propagation) and comparing syntactically the results.

`ring_simplify` applies the normalization procedure described above to the terms given. The tactic then replaces all occurrences of the terms given in the conclusion of the goal by their normal forms. If no term is given, then the conclusion should be an equation and both hand sides are normalized.

See The ring and field tactic families for more information on the tactic and how to declare new ring structures. All declared field structures can be printed with the `Print Rings` command.

`field`

`field_simplify term+`

`field_simplify_eq`

The field tactic is built on the same ideas as ring: this is a reflexive tactic that solves or simplifies equations in a field structure. The main idea is to reduce a field expression (which is an extension of ring expressions with the inverse and division operations) to a fraction made of two polynomial expressions.

Tactic `field` is used to solve subgoals, whereas `field_simplify term+` replaces the provided terms by their reduced fraction. `field_simplify_eq` applies when the conclusion is an equation: it simplifies both hand sides and multiplies so as to cancel denominators. So it produces an equation without division nor inverse.

All of these 3 tactics may generate a subgoal in order to prove that denominators are different from zero.

See The ring and field tactic families for more information on the tactic and how to declare new field structures. All declared field structures can be printed with the Print Fields command.

Example

Require Import Reals.
  [Loading ML file z_syntax_plugin.cmxs … done] [Loading ML file r_syntax_plugin.cmxs … done] [Loading ML file quote_plugin.cmxs … done] [Loading ML file newring_plugin.cmxs … done] [Loading ML file omega_plugin.cmxs … done] [Loading ML file fourier_plugin.cmxs … done] [Loading ML file micromega_plugin.cmxs … done]
Goal forall x y: R, (x * y > 0)%R -> (x * (1 / x + x / (x + y)))%R = ((- 1 / y) * y * (- x * (x / (x + y)) - 1))%R.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall x y : R, (x * y > 0)%R -> (x * (1 / x + x / (x + y)))%R = (-1 / y * y * (- x * (x / (x + y)) - 1))%R
intros; field.
  1 subgoal x, y : R H : (x * y > 0)%R ============================ (x + y)%R <> 0%R /\ y <> 0%R /\ x <> 0%R

See also: file plugins/setoid_ring/RealField.v for an example of instantiation, theory theories/Reals for many examples of use of field.

`fourier`

This tactic written by Loïc Pottier solves linear inequalities on real numbers using Fourier’s method [Fou90]. This tactic must be loaded by `Require Import Fourier`.

Example

Require Import Reals.
Require Import Fourier.
Goal forall x y: R, (x < y)%R -> (y + 1 >= x - 1)%R.
  1 subgoal ============================ forall x y : R, x < y -> y + 1 >= x - 1
intros; fourier.
  No more subgoals.

## Non-logical tactics

`cycle num`

  This tactic puts the `num` first goals at the end of the list of goals. If `num` is negative, it will put the last \(|num|\) goals at the beginning of the list.

Example

Parameter P : nat -> Prop.
  P is declared
Goal P 1 /\ P 2 /\ P 3 /\ P 4 /\ P 5.
  1 subgoal ============================ P 1 /\ P 2 /\ P 3 /\ P 4 /\ P 5
repeat split.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 1 subgoal 2 is: P 2 subgoal 3 is: P 3 subgoal 4 is: P 4 subgoal 5 is: P 5
all: cycle 2.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 3 subgoal 2 is: P 4 subgoal 3 is: P 5 subgoal 4 is: P 1 subgoal 5 is: P 2
all: cycle -3.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 5 subgoal 2 is: P 1 subgoal 3 is: P 2 subgoal 4 is: P 3 subgoal 5 is: P 4

`swap num num`

  This tactic switches the position of the goals of indices `num` and `num`. If either `num` or `num` is negative then goals are counted from the end of the focused goal list. Goals are indexed from 1, there is no goal with position 0.

Example

Parameter P : nat -> Prop.
  P is declared
Goal P 1 /\ P 2 /\ P 3 /\ P 4 /\ P 5.
  1 subgoal ============================ P 1 /\ P 2 /\ P 3 /\ P 4 /\ P 5
repeat split.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 1 subgoal 2 is: P 2 subgoal 3 is: P 3 subgoal 4 is: P 4 subgoal 5 is: P 5
all: swap 1 3.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 3 subgoal 2 is: P 2 subgoal 3 is: P 1 subgoal 4 is: P 4 subgoal 5 is: P 5
all: swap 1 -1.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 5 subgoal 2 is: P 2 subgoal 3 is: P 1 subgoal 4 is: P 4 subgoal 5 is: P 3

`revgoals`

This tactics reverses the list of the focused goals.

Example

Parameter P : nat -> Prop.
  P is declared
Goal P 1 /\ P 2 /\ P 3 /\ P 4 /\ P 5.
  1 subgoal ============================ P 1 /\ P 2 /\ P 3 /\ P 4 /\ P 5
repeat split.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 1 subgoal 2 is: P 2 subgoal 3 is: P 3 subgoal 4 is: P 4 subgoal 5 is: P 5
all: revgoals.
  5 subgoals ============================ P 5 subgoal 2 is: P 4 subgoal 3 is: P 3 subgoal 4 is: P 2 subgoal 5 is: P 1

`shelve`

  This tactic moves all goals under focus to a shelf. While on the shelf, goals will not be focused on. They can be solved by unification, or they can be called back into focus with the command `Unshelve`.

Variant `shelve_unifiable`

  Shelves only the goals under focus that are mentioned in other goals. Goals that appear in the type of other goals can be solved by unification.

Example

Goal exists n, n=0.
  1 subgoal ============================ exists n : nat, n = 0
refine (ex_intro _ _ _).
  1 focused subgoal (shelved: 1) ============================ ?Goal = 0
all: shelve_unifiable.
reflexivity.
  No more subgoals.

Command `Unshelve`

  This command moves all the goals on the shelf (see `shelve`) from the shelf into focus, by appending them to the end of the current list of focused goals.

`give_up`

  This tactic removes the focused goals from the proof. They are not solved, and cannot be solved later in the proof. As the goals are not solved, the proof cannot be closed.

  The `give_up` tactic can be used while editing a proof, to choose to write the proof script in a non-sequential order.

## Simple tactic macros

A simple example has more value than a long explanation:

Example

Ltac Solve := simpl; intros; auto.
  Solve is defined
Ltac ElimBoolRewrite b H1 H2 := elim b; [ intros; rewrite H1; eauto | intros; rewrite H2; eauto ].
  ElimBoolRewrite is defined

The tactics macros are synchronous with the Coq section mechanism: a tactic definition is deleted from the current environment when you close the section (see also Section mechanism) where it was defined. If you want that a tactic macro defined in a module is usable in the modules that require it, you should put it outside of any section.

The tactic language gives examples of more complex user-defined tactics.

[1] | Actually, only the second subgoal will be generated since the other one can be automatically checked.

[2] | This corresponds to the cut rule of sequent calculus.

[3] | Reminder: opaque constants will not be expanded by δ reductions.

[4] | The behavior of this tactic has much changed compared to the versions available in the previous distributions (V6). This may cause significant changes in your theories to obtain the same result. As a drawback of the re-engineering of the code, this tactic has also been completely revised to get a very compact and readable version.