assumption

assumption tries to solve the main goal using a hypothesis of compatible type, or else fails. Note also the ‹t› term notation, which is a shorthand for show t by assumption.

apply_assumption

apply_assumption looks for an assumption of the form ... → ∀ _, ... → head where head matches the current goal.

You can specify additional rules to apply using apply_assumption [...]. By default apply_assumption will also try rfl, trivial, congrFun, and congrArg. If you don't want these, or don't want to use all hypotheses, use apply_assumption only [...]. You can use apply_assumption [-h] to omit a local hypothesis. You can use apply_assumption using [a₁, ...] to use all lemmas which have been labelled with the attributes aᵢ (these attributes must be created using register_label_attr).

apply_assumption will use consequences of local hypotheses obtained via symm.

If apply_assumption fails, it will call exfalso and try again. Thus if there is an assumption of the form P → ¬ Q, the new tactic state will have two goals, P and Q.

You can pass a further configuration via the syntax apply_rules (config := {...}) lemmas. The options supported are the same as for solve_by_elim (and include all the options for apply).

exists

exists e₁, e₂, ... is shorthand for refine ⟨e₁, e₂, ...⟩; try trivial. It is useful for existential goals.

intro

Introduces one or more hypotheses, optionally naming and/or pattern-matching them. For each hypothesis to be introduced, the remaining main goal's target type must be a let or function type.

• intro by itself introduces one anonymous hypothesis, which can be accessed by e.g. assumption.

• intro x y introduces two hypotheses and names them. Individual hypotheses can be anonymized via _, or matched against a pattern:

  -- ... ⊢ α × β → ...
  intro (a, b)
  -- ..., a : α, b : β ⊢ ...
  

• Alternatively, intro can be combined with pattern matching much like fun:

  intro
  | n + 1, 0 => tac
  | ...
  

intros

Introduces zero or more hypotheses, optionally naming them.

• intros is equivalent to repeatedly applying intro until the goal is not an obvious candidate for intro, which is to say that so long as the goal is a let or a pi type (e.g. an implication, function, or universal quantifier), the intros tactic will introduce an anonymous hypothesis. This tactic does not unfold definitions.

• intros x y ... is equivalent to intro x y ..., introducing hypotheses for each supplied argument and unfolding definitions as necessary. Each argument can be either an identifier or a _. An identifier indicates a name to use for the corresponding introduced hypothesis, and a _ indicates that the hypotheses should be introduced anonymously.

Examples

Basic properties:

def AllEven (f : Nat → Nat) := ∀ n, f n % 2 = 0

-- Introduces the two obvious hypotheses automatically
example : ∀ (f : Nat → Nat), AllEven f → AllEven (fun k => f (k + 1)) := by
  intros
  /- Tactic state
     f✝ : Nat → Nat
     a✝ : AllEven f✝
     ⊢ AllEven fun k => f✝ (k + 1) -/
  sorry

-- Introduces exactly two hypotheses, naming only the first
example : ∀ (f : Nat → Nat), AllEven f → AllEven (fun k => f (k + 1)) := by
  intros g _
  /- Tactic state
     g : Nat → Nat
     a✝ : AllEven g
     ⊢ AllEven fun k => g (k + 1) -/
  sorry

-- Introduces exactly three hypotheses, which requires unfolding `AllEven`
example : ∀ (f : Nat → Nat), AllEven f → AllEven (fun k => f (k + 1)) := by
  intros f h n
  /- Tactic state
     f : Nat → Nat
     h : AllEven f
     n : Nat
     ⊢ (fun k => f (k + 1)) n % 2 = 0 -/
  apply h

Implications:

example (p q : Prop) : p → q → p := by
  intros
  /- Tactic state
     a✝¹ : p
     a✝ : q
     ⊢ p      -/
  assumption

Let bindings:

example : let n := 1; let k := 2; n + k = 3 := by
  intros
  /- n✝ : Nat := 1
     k✝ : Nat := 2
     ⊢ n✝ + k✝ = 3 -/
  rfl

intro | ... => ... | ... => ...

The tactic

intro
| pat1 => tac1
| pat2 => tac2

is the same as:

intro x
match x with
| pat1 => tac1
| pat2 => tac2

That is, intro can be followed by match arms and it introduces the values while doing a pattern match. This is equivalent to fun with match arms in term mode.

rintro

The rintro tactic is a combination of the intros tactic with rcases to allow for destructuring patterns while introducing variables. See rcases for a description of supported patterns. For example, rintro (a | ⟨b, c⟩) ⟨d, e⟩ will introduce two variables, and then do case splits on both of them producing two subgoals, one with variables a d e and the other with b c d e.

rintro, unlike rcases, also supports the form (x y : ty) for introducing and type-ascripting multiple variables at once, similar to binders.

rfl

This tactic applies to a goal whose target has the form x ~ x, where ~ is equality, heterogeneous equality or any relation that has a reflexivity lemma tagged with the attribute @[refl].

rfl'

rfl' is similar to rfl, but disables smart unfolding and unfolds all kinds of definitions, theorems included (relevant for declarations defined by well-founded recursion).

apply_rfl

The same as rfl, but without trying eq_refl at the end.

symm

• symm applies to a goal whose target has the form t ~ u where ~ is a symmetric relation, that is, a relation which has a symmetry lemma tagged with the attribute [symm]. It replaces the target with u ~ t.

• symm at h will rewrite a hypothesis h : t ~ u to h : u ~ t.

symm_saturate

For every hypothesis h : a ~ b where a @[symm] lemma is available, add a hypothesis h_symm : b ~ a.

calc

Step-wise reasoning over transitive relations.

calc
  a = b := pab
  b = c := pbc
  ...
  y = z := pyz

proves a = z from the given step-wise proofs. = can be replaced with any relation implementing the typeclass Trans. Instead of repeating the right- hand sides, subsequent left-hand sides can be replaced with _.

calc
  a = b := pab
  _ = c := pbc
  ...
  _ = z := pyz

It is also possible to write the first relation as <lhs>\n _ = <rhs> := <proof>. This is useful for aligning relation symbols, especially on longer: identifiers:

calc abc
  _ = bce := pabce
  _ = cef := pbcef
  ...
  _ = xyz := pwxyz

calc works as a term, as a tactic or as a conv tactic.

See Theorem Proving in Lean 4 for more information.

exact

exact e closes the main goal if its target type matches that of e.

apply

apply e tries to match the current goal against the conclusion of e's type. If it succeeds, then the tactic returns as many subgoals as the number of premises that have not been fixed by type inference or type class resolution. Non-dependent premises are added before dependent ones.

The apply tactic uses higher-order pattern matching, type class resolution, and first-order unification with dependent types.

refine

refine e behaves like exact e, except that named (?x) or unnamed (?_) holes in e that are not solved by unification with the main goal's target type are converted into new goals, using the hole's name, if any, as the goal case name.

refine'

refine' e behaves like refine e, except that unsolved placeholders (_) and implicit parameters are also converted into new goals.

solve_by_elim

solve_by_elim calls apply on the main goal to find an assumption whose head matches and then repeatedly calls apply on the generated subgoals until no subgoals remain, performing at most maxDepth (defaults to 6) recursive steps.

solve_by_elim discharges the current goal or fails.

solve_by_elim performs backtracking if subgoals can not be solved.

By default, the assumptions passed to apply are the local context, rfl, trivial, congrFun and congrArg.

The assumptions can be modified with similar syntax as for simp:

• solve_by_elim [h₁, h₂, ..., hᵣ] also applies the given expressions.

• solve_by_elim only [h₁, h₂, ..., hᵣ] does not include the local context, rfl, trivial, congrFun, or congrArg unless they are explicitly included.

• solve_by_elim [-h₁, ... -hₙ] removes the given local hypotheses.

• solve_by_elim using [a₁, ...] uses all lemmas which have been labelled with the attributes aᵢ (these attributes must be created using register_label_attr).

solve_by_elim* tries to solve all goals together, using backtracking if a solution for one goal makes other goals impossible. (Adding or removing local hypotheses may not be well-behaved when starting with multiple goals.)

Optional arguments passed via a configuration argument as solve_by_elim (config := { ... })

• maxDepth: number of attempts at discharging generated subgoals

• symm: adds all hypotheses derived by symm (defaults to true).

• exfalso: allow calling exfalso and trying again if solve_by_elim fails (defaults to true).

• transparency: change the transparency mode when calling apply. Defaults to .default, but it is often useful to change to .reducible, so semireducible definitions will not be unfolded when trying to apply a lemma.

See also the doc-comment for Lean.Meta.Tactic.Backtrack.BacktrackConfig for the options proc, suspend, and discharge which allow further customization of solve_by_elim. Both apply_assumption and apply_rules are implemented via these hooks.

apply_rules

apply_rules [l₁, l₂, ...] tries to solve the main goal by iteratively applying the list of lemmas [l₁, l₂, ...] or by applying a local hypothesis. If apply generates new goals, apply_rules iteratively tries to solve those goals. You can use apply_rules [-h] to omit a local hypothesis.

apply_rules will also use rfl, trivial, congrFun and congrArg. These can be disabled, as can local hypotheses, by using apply_rules only [...].

You can use apply_rules using [a₁, ...] to use all lemmas which have been labelled with the attributes aᵢ (these attributes must be created using register_label_attr).

You can pass a further configuration via the syntax apply_rules (config := {...}). The options supported are the same as for solve_by_elim (and include all the options for apply).

apply_rules will try calling symm on hypotheses and exfalso on the goal as needed. This can be disabled with apply_rules (config := {symm := false, exfalso := false}).

You can bound the iteration depth using the syntax apply_rules (config := {maxDepth := n}).

Unlike solve_by_elim, apply_rules does not perform backtracking, and greedily applies a lemma from the list until it gets stuck.

exfalso

exfalso converts a goal ⊢ tgt into ⊢ False by applying False.elim.

contradiction

contradiction closes the main goal if its hypotheses are "trivially contradictory".

• Inductive type/family with no applicable constructors

  example (h : False) : p := by contradiction
  

• Injectivity of constructors

  example (h : none = some true) : p := by contradiction  --
  

• Decidable false proposition

  example (h : 2 + 2 = 3) : p := by contradiction
  

• Contradictory hypotheses

  example (h : p) (h' : ¬ p) : q := by contradiction
  

• Other simple contradictions such as

  example (x : Nat) (h : x ≠ x) : p := by contradiction
  

false_or_by_contra

Changes the goal to False, retaining as much information as possible:

• If the goal is False, do nothing.

• If the goal is an implication or a function type, introduce the argument and restart. (In particular, if the goal is x ≠ y, introduce x = y.)

• Otherwise, for a propositional goal P, replace it with ¬ ¬ P (attempting to find a Decidable instance, but otherwise falling back to working classically) and introduce ¬ P.

• For a non-propositional goal use False.elim.

suffices

Given a main goal ctx ⊢ t, suffices h : t' from e replaces the main goal with ctx ⊢ t', e must have type t in the context ctx, h : t'.

The variant suffices h : t' by tac is a shorthand for suffices h : t' from by tac. If h : is omitted, the name this is used.

change

• change tgt' will change the goal from tgt to tgt', assuming these are definitionally equal.

• change t' at h will change hypothesis h : t to have type t', assuming assuming t and t' are definitionally equal.

change ... with ...

• change a with b will change occurrences of a to b in the goal, assuming a and b are definitionally equal.

• change a with b at h similarly changes a to b in the type of hypothesis h.

generalize

• generalize ([h :] e = x),+ replaces all occurrences es in the main goal with a fresh hypothesis xs. If h is given, h : e = x is introduced as well.

• generalize e = x at h₁ ... hₙ also generalizes occurrences of e inside h₁, ..., hₙ.

• generalize e = x at * will generalize occurrences of e everywhere.

specialize

The tactic specialize h a₁ ... aₙ works on local hypothesis h. The premises of this hypothesis, either universal quantifications or non-dependent implications, are instantiated by concrete terms coming from arguments a₁ ... aₙ. The tactic adds a new hypothesis with the same name h := h a₁ ... aₙ and tries to clear the previous one.

obtain

The obtain tactic is a combination of have and rcases. See rcases for a description of supported patterns.

obtain ⟨patt⟩ : type := proof

is equivalent to

have h : type := proof
rcases h with ⟨patt⟩

If ⟨patt⟩ is omitted, rcases will try to infer the pattern.

If type is omitted, := proof is required.

show

show t finds the first goal whose target unifies with t. It makes that the main goal, performs the unification, and replaces the target with the unified version of t.

show_term

show_term tac runs tac, then prints the generated term in the form "exact X Y Z" or "refine X ?_ Z" if there are remaining subgoals.

(For some tactics, the printed term will not be human readable.)

norm_cast

The norm_cast family of tactics is used to normalize certain coercions (casts) in expressions.

• norm_cast normalizes casts in the target.

• norm_cast at h normalizes casts in hypothesis h.

The tactic is basically a version of simp with a specific set of lemmas to move casts upwards in the expression. Therefore even in situations where non-terminal simp calls are discouraged (because of fragility), norm_cast is considered to be safe. It also has special handling of numerals.

For instance, given an assumption

a b : ℤ
h : ↑a + ↑b < (10 : ℚ)

writing norm_cast at h will turn h into

h : a + b < 10

There are also variants of basic tactics that use norm_cast to normalize expressions during their operation, to make them more flexible about the expressions they accept (we say that it is a tactic modulo the effects of norm_cast):

• exact_mod_cast for exact and apply_mod_cast for apply. Writing exact_mod_cast h and apply_mod_cast h will normalize casts in the goal and h before using exact h or apply h.

• rw_mod_cast for rw. It applies norm_cast between rewrites.

• assumption_mod_cast for assumption. This is effectively norm_cast at *; assumption, but more efficient. It normalizes casts in the goal and, for every hypothesis h in the context, it will try to normalize casts in h and use exact h.

See also push_cast, which moves casts inwards rather than lifting them outwards.

push_cast

push_cast rewrites the goal to move certain coercions (casts) inward, toward the leaf nodes. This uses norm_cast lemmas in the forward direction. For example, ↑(a + b) will be written to ↑a + ↑b.

• push_cast moves casts inward in the goal.

• push_cast at h moves casts inward in the hypothesis h. It can be used with extra simp lemmas with, for example, push_cast [Int.add_zero].

Example:

example (a b : Nat)
    (h1 : ((a + b : Nat) : Int) = 10)
    (h2 : ((a + b + 0 : Nat) : Int) = 10) :
    ((a + b : Nat) : Int) = 10 := by
  /-
  h1 : ↑(a + b) = 10
  h2 : ↑(a + b + 0) = 10
  ⊢ ↑(a + b) = 10
  -/
  push_cast
  /- Now
  ⊢ ↑a + ↑b = 10
  -/
  push_cast at h1
  push_cast [Int.add_zero] at h2
  /- Now
  h1 h2 : ↑a + ↑b = 10
  -/
  exact h1

See also norm_cast.

exact_mod_cast

Normalize casts in the goal and the given expression, then close the goal with exact.

apply_mod_cast

Normalize casts in the goal and the given expression, then apply the expression to the goal.

rw_mod_cast

Rewrites with the given rules, normalizing casts prior to each step.

assumption_mod_cast

assumption_mod_cast is a variant of assumption that solves the goal using a hypothesis. Unlike assumption, it first pre-processes the goal and each hypothesis to move casts as far outwards as possible, so it can be used in more situations.

Concretely, it runs norm_cast on the goal. For each local hypothesis h, it also normalizes h with norm_cast and tries to use that to close the goal.

ext

Applies extensionality lemmas that are registered with the @[ext] attribute.

• ext pat* applies extensionality theorems as much as possible, using the patterns pat* to introduce the variables in extensionality theorems using rintro. For example, the patterns are used to name the variables introduced by lemmas such as funext.

• Without patterns,ext applies extensionality lemmas as much as possible but introduces anonymous hypotheses whenever needed.

• ext pat* : n applies ext theorems only up to depth n.

The ext1 pat* tactic is like ext pat* except that it only applies a single extensionality theorem.

Unused patterns will generate warning. Patterns that don't match the variables will typically result in the introduction of anonymous hypotheses.

ext1

ext1 pat* is like ext pat* except that it only applies a single extensionality theorem rather than recursively applying as many extensionality theorems as possible.

The pat* patterns are processed using the rintro tactic. If no patterns are supplied, then variables are introduced anonymously using the intros tactic.

apply_ext_theorem

Apply a single extensionality theorem to the current goal.

funext

Apply function extensionality and introduce new hypotheses. The tactic funext will keep applying the funext lemma until the goal target is not reducible to

  |-  ((fun x => ...) = (fun x => ...))

The variant funext h₁ ... hₙ applies funext n times, and uses the given identifiers to name the new hypotheses. Patterns can be used like in the intro tactic. Example, given a goal

  |-  ((fun x : Nat × Bool => ...) = (fun x => ...))

funext (a, b) applies funext once and performs pattern matching on the newly introduced pair.

simp

The simp tactic uses lemmas and hypotheses to simplify the main goal target or non-dependent hypotheses. It has many variants:

• simp simplifies the main goal target using lemmas tagged with the attribute [simp].

• simp [h₁, h₂, ..., hₙ] simplifies the main goal target using the lemmas tagged with the attribute [simp] and the given hᵢ's, where the hᵢ's are expressions.-

• If an hᵢ is a defined constant f, then f is unfolded. If f has equational lemmas associated with it (and is not a projection or a reducible definition), these are used to rewrite with f.

• simp [*] simplifies the main goal target using the lemmas tagged with the attribute [simp] and all hypotheses.

• simp only [h₁, h₂, ..., hₙ] is like simp [h₁, h₂, ..., hₙ] but does not use [simp] lemmas.

• simp [-id₁, ..., -idₙ] simplifies the main goal target using the lemmas tagged with the attribute [simp], but removes the ones named idᵢ.

• simp at h₁ h₂ ... hₙ simplifies the hypotheses h₁ : T₁ ... hₙ : Tₙ. If the target or another hypothesis depends on hᵢ, a new simplified hypothesis hᵢ is introduced, but the old one remains in the local context.

• simp at * simplifies all the hypotheses and the target.

• simp [*] at * simplifies target and all (propositional) hypotheses using the other hypotheses.

simp!

simp! is shorthand for simp with autoUnfold := true. This will rewrite with all equation lemmas, which can be used to partially evaluate many definitions.

simp?

simp? takes the same arguments as simp, but reports an equivalent call to simp only that would be sufficient to close the goal. This is useful for reducing the size of the simp set in a local invocation to speed up processing.

example (x : Nat) : (if True then x + 2 else 3) = x + 2 := by
  simp? -- prints "Try this: simp only [ite_true]"

This command can also be used in simp_all and dsimp.

simp?!

simp? takes the same arguments as simp, but reports an equivalent call to simp only that would be sufficient to close the goal. This is useful for reducing the size of the simp set in a local invocation to speed up processing.

example (x : Nat) : (if True then x + 2 else 3) = x + 2 := by
  simp? -- prints "Try this: simp only [ite_true]"

This command can also be used in simp_all and dsimp.

simp_arith

simp_arith is shorthand for simp with arith := true and decide := true. This enables the use of normalization by linear arithmetic.

simp_arith!

simp_arith! is shorthand for simp_arith with autoUnfold := true. This will rewrite with all equation lemmas, which can be used to partially evaluate many definitions.

dsimp

The dsimp tactic is the definitional simplifier. It is similar to simp but only applies theorems that hold by reflexivity. Thus, the result is guaranteed to be definitionally equal to the input.

dsimp!

dsimp! is shorthand for dsimp with autoUnfold := true. This will rewrite with all equation lemmas, which can be used to partially evaluate many definitions.

dsimp?

simp? takes the same arguments as simp, but reports an equivalent call to simp only that would be sufficient to close the goal. This is useful for reducing the size of the simp set in a local invocation to speed up processing.

example (x : Nat) : (if True then x + 2 else 3) = x + 2 := by
  simp? -- prints "Try this: simp only [ite_true]"

This command can also be used in simp_all and dsimp.

dsimp?!

simp? takes the same arguments as simp, but reports an equivalent call to simp only that would be sufficient to close the goal. This is useful for reducing the size of the simp set in a local invocation to speed up processing.

example (x : Nat) : (if True then x + 2 else 3) = x + 2 := by
  simp? -- prints "Try this: simp only [ite_true]"

This command can also be used in simp_all and dsimp.

simp_all

simp_all is a stronger version of simp [*] at * where the hypotheses and target are simplified multiple times until no simplification is applicable. Only non-dependent propositional hypotheses are considered.

simp_all!

simp_all! is shorthand for simp_all with autoUnfold := true. This will rewrite with all equation lemmas, which can be used to partially evaluate many definitions.

simp_all?

simp? takes the same arguments as simp, but reports an equivalent call to simp only that would be sufficient to close the goal. This is useful for reducing the size of the simp set in a local invocation to speed up processing.

example (x : Nat) : (if True then x + 2 else 3) = x + 2 := by
  simp? -- prints "Try this: simp only [ite_true]"

This command can also be used in simp_all and dsimp.

simp_all?!

simp? takes the same arguments as simp, but reports an equivalent call to simp only that would be sufficient to close the goal. This is useful for reducing the size of the simp set in a local invocation to speed up processing.

example (x : Nat) : (if True then x + 2 else 3) = x + 2 := by
  simp? -- prints "Try this: simp only [ite_true]"

This command can also be used in simp_all and dsimp.

simp_all_arith

simp_all_arith combines the effects of simp_all and simp_arith.

simp_all_arith!

simp_all_arith! combines the effects of simp_all, simp_arith and simp!.

simpa

This is a "finishing" tactic modification of simp. It has two forms.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] using e will simplify the goal and the type of e using rules, then try to close the goal using e.

Simplifying the type of e makes it more likely to match the goal (which has also been simplified). This construction also tends to be more robust under changes to the simp lemma set.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] will simplify the goal and the type of a hypothesis this if present in the context, then try to close the goal using the assumption tactic.

simpa!

This is a "finishing" tactic modification of simp. It has two forms.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] using e will simplify the goal and the type of e using rules, then try to close the goal using e.

Simplifying the type of e makes it more likely to match the goal (which has also been simplified). This construction also tends to be more robust under changes to the simp lemma set.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] will simplify the goal and the type of a hypothesis this if present in the context, then try to close the goal using the assumption tactic.

simpa?

This is a "finishing" tactic modification of simp. It has two forms.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] using e will simplify the goal and the type of e using rules, then try to close the goal using e.

Simplifying the type of e makes it more likely to match the goal (which has also been simplified). This construction also tends to be more robust under changes to the simp lemma set.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] will simplify the goal and the type of a hypothesis this if present in the context, then try to close the goal using the assumption tactic.

simpa?!

This is a "finishing" tactic modification of simp. It has two forms.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] using e will simplify the goal and the type of e using rules, then try to close the goal using e.

Simplifying the type of e makes it more likely to match the goal (which has also been simplified). This construction also tends to be more robust under changes to the simp lemma set.

• simpa [rules, ⋯] will simplify the goal and the type of a hypothesis this if present in the context, then try to close the goal using the assumption tactic.

simp_wf

Unfold definitions commonly used in well founded relation definitions.

Since Lean 4.12, Lean unfolds these definitions automatically before presenting the goal to the user, and this tactic should no longer be necessary. Calls to simp_wf can be removed or replaced by plain calls to simp.

rw

rw is like rewrite, but also tries to close the goal by "cheap" (reducible) rfl afterwards.

rewrite

rewrite [e] applies identity e as a rewrite rule to the target of the main goal. If e is preceded by left arrow (← or <-), the rewrite is applied in the reverse direction. If e is a defined constant, then the equational theorems associated with e are used. This provides a convenient way to unfold e.

• rewrite [e₁, ..., eₙ] applies the given rules sequentially.

• rewrite [e] at l rewrites e at location(s) l, where l is either * or a list of hypotheses in the local context. In the latter case, a turnstile ⊢ or |- can also be used, to signify the target of the goal.

Using rw (occs := .pos L) [e], where L : List Nat, you can control which "occurrences" are rewritten. (This option applies to each rule, so usually this will only be used with a single rule.) Occurrences count from 1. At each allowed occurrence, arguments of the rewrite rule e may be instantiated, restricting which later rewrites can be found. (Disallowed occurrences do not result in instantiation.) (occs := .neg L) allows skipping specified occurrences.

erw

erw [rules] is a shorthand for rw (transparency := .default) [rules]. This does rewriting up to unfolding of regular definitions (by comparison to regular rw which only unfolds @[reducible] definitions).

rwa

rwa is short-hand for rw; assumption.

Lean.Meta.Rewrite.Config : Type

Constructor

Lean.Meta.Rewrite.Config.mk

Fields

transparency	:	Lean.Meta.TransparencyMode
offsetCnstrs	:	Bool
occs	:	Lean.Meta.Occurrences
newGoals	:	Lean.Meta.Rewrite.NewGoals

Lean.Meta.Occurrences : Type

Configuration for which occurrences that match an expression should be rewritten.

Constructors

• all : Lean.Meta.Occurrences

  All occurrences should be rewritten.

• pos (idxs : List Nat) : Lean.Meta.Occurrences

  A list of indices for which occurrences should be rewritten.

• neg (idxs : List Nat) : Lean.Meta.Occurrences

  A list of indices for which occurrences should not be rewritten.

Lean.Meta.TransparencyMode : Type

Constructors

• all : Lean.Meta.TransparencyMode

  unfold all constants, even those tagged as @[irreducible].

• default : Lean.Meta.TransparencyMode

  unfold all constants except those tagged as @[irreducible].

• reducible : Lean.Meta.TransparencyMode

  unfold only constants tagged with the @[reducible] attribute.

• instances : Lean.Meta.TransparencyMode

  unfold reducible constants and constants tagged with the @[instance] attribute.

unfold

• unfold id unfolds all occurrences of definition id in the target.

• unfold id1 id2 ... is equivalent to unfold id1; unfold id2; ....

• unfold id at h unfolds at the hypothesis h.

Definitions can be either global or local definitions.

For non-recursive global definitions, this tactic is identical to delta. For recursive global definitions, it uses the "unfolding lemma" id.eq_def, which is generated for each recursive definition, to unfold according to the recursive definition given by the user. Only one level of unfolding is performed, in contrast to simp only [id], which unfolds definition id recursively.

Implemented by Lean.Elab.Tactic.evalUnfold.

replace

Acts like have, but removes a hypothesis with the same name as this one if possible. For example, if the state is:

f : α → β
h : α
⊢ goal

Then after replace h := f h the state will be:

f : α → β
h : β
⊢ goal

whereas have h := f h would result in:

f : α → β
h† : α
h : β
⊢ goal

This can be used to simulate the specialize and apply at tactics of Coq.

delta

delta id1 id2 ... delta-expands the definitions id1, id2, .... This is a low-level tactic, it will expose how recursive definitions have been compiled by Lean.

exact?

Searches environment for definitions or theorems that can solve the goal using exact with conditions resolved by solve_by_elim.

The optional using clause provides identifiers in the local context that must be used by exact? when closing the goal. This is most useful if there are multiple ways to resolve the goal, and one wants to guide which lemma is used.

apply?

Searches environment for definitions or theorems that can refine the goal using apply with conditions resolved when possible with solve_by_elim.

The optional using clause provides identifiers in the local context that must be used when closing the goal.

rw?

rw? tries to find a lemma which can rewrite the goal.

rw? should not be left in proofs; it is a search tool, like apply?.

Suggestions are printed as rw [h] or rw [← h].

You can use rw? [-my_lemma, -my_theorem] to prevent rw? using the named lemmas.

split

The split tactic is useful for breaking nested if-then-else and match expressions into separate cases. For a match expression with n cases, the split tactic generates at most n subgoals.

For example, given n : Nat, and a target if n = 0 then Q else R, split will generate one goal with hypothesis n = 0 and target Q, and a second goal with hypothesis ¬n = 0 and target R. Note that the introduced hypothesis is unnamed, and is commonly renamed used the case or next tactics.

• split will split the goal (target).

• split at h will split the hypothesis h.

by_cases

by_cases (h :)? p splits the main goal into two cases, assuming h : p in the first branch, and h : ¬ p in the second branch.

decide

decide attempts to prove the main goal (with target type p) by synthesizing an instance of Decidable p and then reducing that instance to evaluate the truth value of p. If it reduces to isTrue h, then h is a proof of p that closes the goal.

The target is not allowed to contain local variables or metavariables. If there are local variables, you can first try using the revert tactic with these local variables to move them into the target, or you can use the +revert option, described below.

Options:

• decide +revert begins by reverting local variables that the target depends on, after cleaning up the local context of irrelevant variables. A variable is relevant if it appears in the target, if it appears in a relevant variable, or if it is a proposition that refers to a relevant variable.

• decide +kernel uses kernel for reduction instead of the elaborator. It has two key properties: (1) since it uses the kernel, it ignores transparency and can unfold everything, and (2) it reduces the Decidable instance only once instead of twice.

• decide +native uses the native code compiler (#eval) to evaluate the Decidable instance, admitting the result via the Lean.ofReduceBool axiom. This can be significantly more efficient than using reduction, but it is at the cost of increasing the size of the trusted code base. Namely, it depends on the correctness of the Lean compiler and all definitions with an @[implemented_by] attribute. Like with +kernel, the Decidable instance is evaluated only once.

Limitation: In the default mode or +kernel mode, since decide uses reduction to evaluate the term, Decidable instances defined by well-founded recursion might not work because evaluating them requires reducing proofs. Reduction can also get stuck on Decidable instances with Eq.rec terms. These can appear in instances defined using tactics (such as rw and simp). To avoid this, create such instances using definitions such as decidable_of_iff instead.

Examples

Proving inequalities:

example : 2 + 2 ≠ 5 := by decide

Trying to prove a false proposition:

example : 1 ≠ 1 := by decide
/-
tactic 'decide' proved that the proposition
  1 ≠ 1
is false
-/

Trying to prove a proposition whose Decidable instance fails to reduce

opaque unknownProp : Prop

open scoped Classical in
example : unknownProp := by decide
/-
tactic 'decide' failed for proposition
  unknownProp
since its 'Decidable' instance reduced to
  Classical.choice ⋯
rather than to the 'isTrue' constructor.
-/

Properties and relations

For equality goals for types with decidable equality, usually rfl can be used in place of decide.

example : 1 + 1 = 2 := by decide
example : 1 + 1 = 2 := by rfl

native_decide

native_decide is a synonym for decide +native. It will attempt to prove a goal of type p by synthesizing an instance of Decidable p and then evaluating it to isTrue ... Unlike decide, this uses #eval to evaluate the decidability instance.

This should be used with care because it adds the entire lean compiler to the trusted part, and the axiom Lean.ofReduceBool will show up in #print axioms for theorems using this method or anything that transitively depends on them. Nevertheless, because it is compiled, this can be significantly more efficient than using decide, and for very large computations this is one way to run external programs and trust the result.

example : (List.range 1000).length = 1000 := by native_decide

omega

The omega tactic, for resolving integer and natural linear arithmetic problems.

It is not yet a full decision procedure (no "dark" or "grey" shadows), but should be effective on many problems.

We handle hypotheses of the form x = y, x < y, x ≤ y, and k ∣ x for x y in Nat or Int (and k a literal), along with negations of these statements.

We decompose the sides of the inequalities as linear combinations of atoms.

If we encounter x / k or x % k for literal integers k we introduce new auxiliary variables and the relevant inequalities.

On the first pass, we do not perform case splits on natural subtraction. If omega fails, we recursively perform a case split on a natural subtraction appearing in a hypothesis, and try again.

The options

omega +splitDisjunctions +splitNatSub +splitNatAbs +splitMinMax

can be used to:

• splitDisjunctions: split any disjunctions found in the context, if the problem is not otherwise solvable.

• splitNatSub: for each appearance of ((a - b : Nat) : Int), split on a ≤ b if necessary.

• splitNatAbs: for each appearance of Int.natAbs a, split on 0 ≤ a if necessary.

• splitMinMax: for each occurrence of min a b, split on min a b = a ∨ min a b = b Currently, all of these are on by default.

bv_omega

bv_omega is omega with an additional preprocessor that turns statements about BitVec into statements about Nat. Currently the preprocessor is implemented as try simp only [bv_toNat] at *. bv_toNat is a @[simp] attribute that you can (cautiously) add to more theorems.

skip

skip does nothing.

guard_hyp

Tactic to check that a named hypothesis has a given type and/or value.

• guard_hyp h : t checks the type up to reducible defeq,

• guard_hyp h :~ t checks the type up to default defeq,

• guard_hyp h :ₛ t checks the type up to syntactic equality,

• guard_hyp h :ₐ t checks the type up to alpha equality.

• guard_hyp h := v checks value up to reducible defeq,

• guard_hyp h :=~ v checks value up to default defeq,

• guard_hyp h :=ₛ v checks value up to syntactic equality,

• guard_hyp h :=ₐ v checks the value up to alpha equality.

The value v is elaborated using the type of h as the expected type.

guard_target

Tactic to check that the target agrees with a given expression.

• guard_target = e checks that the target is defeq at reducible transparency to e.

• guard_target =~ e checks that the target is defeq at default transparency to e.

• guard_target =ₛ e checks that the target is syntactically equal to e.

• guard_target =ₐ e checks that the target is alpha-equivalent to e.

The term e is elaborated with the type of the goal as the expected type, which is mostly useful within conv mode.

guard_expr

Tactic to check equality of two expressions.

• guard_expr e = e' checks that e and e' are defeq at reducible transparency.

• guard_expr e =~ e' checks that e and e' are defeq at default transparency.

• guard_expr e =ₛ e' checks that e and e' are syntactically equal.

• guard_expr e =ₐ e' checks that e and e' are alpha-equivalent.

Both e and e' are elaborated then have their metavariables instantiated before the equality check. Their types are unified (using isDefEqGuarded) before synthetic metavariables are processed, which helps with default instance handling.

done

done succeeds iff there are no remaining goals.

sleep

The tactic sleep ms sleeps for ms milliseconds and does nothing. It is used for debugging purposes only.

checkpoint

checkpoint tac acts the same as tac, but it caches the input and output of tac, and if the file is re-elaborated and the input matches, the tactic is not re-run and its effects are reapplied to the state. This is useful for improving responsiveness when working on a long tactic proof, by wrapping expensive tactics with checkpoint.

See the save tactic, which may be more convenient to use.

(TODO: do this automatically and transparently so that users don't have to use this combinator explicitly.)

save

save is defined to be the same as skip, but the elaborator has special handling for occurrences of save in tactic scripts and will transform by tac1; save; tac2 to by (checkpoint tac1); tac2, meaning that the effect of tac1 will be cached and replayed. This is useful for improving responsiveness when working on a long tactic proof, by using save after expensive tactics.

(TODO: do this automatically and transparently so that users don't have to use this combinator explicitly.)

stop

stop is a helper tactic for "discarding" the rest of a proof: it is defined as repeat sorry. It is useful when working on the middle of a complex proofs, and less messy than commenting the remainder of the proof.

decreasing_tactic

decreasing_tactic is called by default on well-founded recursions in order to synthesize a proof that recursive calls decrease along the selected well founded relation. It can be locally overridden by using decreasing_by tac on the recursive definition, and it can also be globally extended by adding more definitions for decreasing_tactic (or decreasing_trivial, which this tactic calls).

decreasing_trivial

Extensible helper tactic for decreasing_tactic. This handles the "base case" reasoning after applying lexicographic order lemmas. It can be extended by adding more macro definitions, e.g.

macro_rules | `(tactic| decreasing_trivial) => `(tactic| linarith)

array_get_dec

This tactic, added to the decreasing_trivial toolbox, proves that sizeOf arr[i] < sizeOf arr, which is useful for well founded recursions over a nested inductive like inductive T | mk : Array T → T.

decreasing_with

Constructs a proof of decreasing along a well founded relation, by simplifying, then applying lexicographic order lemmas and finally using ts to solve the base case. If it fails, it prints a message to help the user diagnose an ill-founded recursive definition.

get_elem_tactic

get_elem_tactic is the tactic automatically called by the notation arr[i] to prove any side conditions that arise when constructing the term (e.g. the index is in bounds of the array). It just delegates to get_elem_tactic_trivial and gives a diagnostic error message otherwise; users are encouraged to extend get_elem_tactic_trivial instead of this tactic.

get_elem_tactic_trivial

get_elem_tactic_trivial is an extensible tactic automatically called by the notation arr[i] to prove any side conditions that arise when constructing the term (e.g. the index is in bounds of the array). The default behavior is to just try trivial (which handles the case where i < arr.size is in the context) and simp_arith and omega (for doing linear arithmetic in the index).

sorry

The sorry tactic closes the goal using sorryAx. This is intended for stubbing out incomplete parts of a proof while still having a syntactically correct proof skeleton. Lean will give a warning whenever a proof uses sorry, so you aren't likely to miss it, but you can double check if a theorem depends on sorry by using #print axioms my_thm and looking for sorryAx in the axiom list.

admit

admit is a shorthand for exact sorry.

dbg_trace

dbg_trace "foo" prints foo when elaborated. Useful for debugging tactic control flow:

example : False ∨ True := by
  first
  | apply Or.inl; trivial; dbg_trace "left"
  | apply Or.inr; trivial; dbg_trace "right"

trace_state

trace_state displays the current state in the info view.

trace

trace msg displays msg in the info view.

trivial

trivial tries different simple tactics (e.g., rfl, contradiction, ...) to close the current goal. You can use the command macro_rules to extend the set of tactics used. Example:

macro_rules | `(tactic| trivial) => `(tactic| simp)

solve

Similar to first, but succeeds only if one the given tactics solves the current goal.

and_intros

and_intros applies And.intro until it does not make progress.

infer_instance

infer_instance is an abbreviation for exact inferInstance. It synthesizes a value of any target type by typeclass inference.

unhygienic

unhygienic tacs runs tacs with name hygiene disabled. This means that tactics that would normally create inaccessible names will instead make regular variables. Warning: Tactics may change their variable naming strategies at any time, so code that depends on autogenerated names is brittle. Users should try not to use unhygienic if possible.

example : ∀ x : Nat, x = x := by unhygienic
  intro            -- x would normally be intro'd as inaccessible
  exact Eq.refl x  -- refer to x

run_tac

The run_tac doSeq tactic executes code in TacticM Unit.