Related
I was playing around with an example from the Isabelle/HOL tutorial to get a better understanding on the correspondence between Isar and Tactics proofs.
This is a version which works:
lemma rtrancl_converseD: "(x,y) ∈ (r ^-1 )^* ⟹ (y,x) ∈ r^* "
proof (induct y rule: rtrancl_induct)
case base
then show ?case ..
next case (step y z)
then have "(z, y) ∈ r" using rtrancl_converseD by simp
with `(y,x)∈ r^*` show "(z,x) ∈ r^*" using [[unify_trace_failure]]
apply (subgoal_tac "1=(1::nat)")
apply (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
apply simp_all
done
qed
I want to instantiate converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl which proofs (?a, ?b) ∈ ?r ⟹ (?b, ?c) ∈ ?r^* ⟹ (?a, ?c) ∈ ?r^* .
But without the seemingly nonsensical apply (subgoal_tac "1=(1::nat)") line this errors with
Clash: r =/= Transitive_Closure.rtrancl
Failed to apply proof method⌂:
using this:
(y, x) ∈ r^*
(z, y) ∈ r
goal (1 subgoal):
1. (z, x) ∈ r^*
If I fully instantiate the rule apply (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl[of z y r x]) this becomes Clash: z__ =/= ya__.
This leaves me with three questions: Why does this specific case break? How can I fix it? And how can I figure out what went wrong in these cases since I can't really understand what the unify_trace_failure message wants to tell me.
rule-tactics are usually sensitive to the order of premises. The order of premises in converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl and in your proof state don't match. Switching the order of premises in the proof state using rotate_tac will make them match the rule, so that you can directly apply fact like this:
... show "(z,x) ∈ r^*"
apply (rotate_tac)
apply (fact converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
done
Or, if you want to include some kind of rule tactic, this would look like this:
apply (rotate_tac)
apply (erule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
apply (assumption)
(I personally don't use apply scripts ever in my everyday work. So apply-style gurus might know more elegant ways of handling this kind of situation. ;) )
Regarding your 1=(1::nat) / simp_all fix:
The whole goal can directly be solved by simp_all. So, attempts with adding stuff like 1=1 probably did not really tell you a lot about how much the other methods contributed to solving the proof.
However, the additional assumption seems to actually help Isabelle match converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl correctly. (Don't ask me why!) So, one could indeed circumvent the problem by adding this spurious assumption and then eliminating it with refl again like:
apply (subgoal_tac "1=(1::nat)")
apply (erule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
apply (assumption)
apply (rule refl)
This does not look particularly elegant, of course.
The [[unify_trace_failure]] probably only really helps if one is familiar with the internal workings of Nipkow's higher-order unification algorithm. (I'm not.) I think the hint for the future here would really be that one must look closely at the order of premises for some tactics (rather than at the unifier debug output).
I found an explanation in the Isar reference 6.4.3 .
The with b1..bn command is equivalent to from b1..bn and this, i.e. it enters the proof chaining mode which adds them as (structured) assumptions to proof methods.
Basic proof methods (such as rule) expect multiple facts to be given
in their proper order, corresponding to a prefix of the premises of
the rule involved. Note that positions may be easily skipped using
something like from _ and a and b, for example. This involves the
trivial rule PROP ψ =⇒ PROP ψ, which is bound in Isabelle/Pure as “_”
(underscore).
Automated methods (such as simp or auto) just insert any given facts
before their usual operation. Depending on the kind of procedure
involved, the order of facts is less significant here.
Given the information about the 'with' translation and that rule expects chained facts in order, we could try to flip the chained facts. And indeed this works:
from this and `(y,x)∈ r^*` show "(z,x) ∈ r^*"
by (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl)
I think "6.4.3 Fundamental methods and attributes" is also relevant because it describes how the basic methods interact with incoming facts. Notably, the '-' noop which is sometimes used when starting proofs turns forward chaining into assumptions on the goal.
with `(y,x)∈ r^*` show "(z,x) ∈ r^*"
apply -
apply (rule converse_rtrancl_into_rtrancl; assumption)
done
This works because the first apply consumes all chained facts so the second apply is pure backwards chaining. This is also why the subgoal_tac or rotate_tac worked, but only if they are in seperate apply commands.
Is there a "generic" informal algorithm that users of Isabelle follow, when they are trying to prove something that isn't proved immediately by auto or sledgehammer? A kind of general way of figuring out, if auto needs additional lemmas, formulated by the user, to succeed or if better some other proof method is used.
A related question is: Is there maybe a table to be found somewhere with all the proof methods together with the context in which to apply them? When I'm reading through the Programming and Proving tutorial, the description of various methods (respectively variants of some methods, such as the many variant of auto) are scattered through the text, which constantly makes me go back and for between text and Isabelle code (which also leads to forgetting what exactly is used for what) and which results in a very inefficient workflow.
No, there's no "generic" informal way. You can use try0 which tries all standard proof methods (like auto, blast, fastforce, …) and/or sledgehammer which is more advanced.
After that, the fun part starts.
Can this theorem be shown with simpler helper lemmas? You can use the command "sorry" for assuming that a lemma is true.
How would I prove this on a piece of paper? And then try to do this proof in Isabelle.
Ask for help :) Lots of people on stack overflow, #isabelle on freenode and the Isabelle mailing list are waiting for your questions.
For your second question: No, there's no such overview. Maybe someone should write one, but as mentioned before you can simply use try0.
ammbauer's answer already covers lots of important stuff, but here are some more things that may help you:
When the automation gets stuck at a certain point, look at the available premises and the goal at that point. What kind of simplification did you expect the system to do at that point? Why didn't it do it? Perhaps the corresponding rule is just not in the simp set (add it with simp add:) or some preconditions of the rule could not be proved (in that case, add enough facts so that they can be proved, or do it yourself in an additional step)
Isar proofs are good. If you have some complicated goal, try breaking it down into smaller steps in Isar. If you have bigger auxiliary facts that may even be of more general interest, try pulling them out as auxiliary lemmas. Perhaps you can even generalise them a bit. Sometimes that even simplifies the proof.
In the same vein: Too much information can confuse both you and Isabelle. You can introduce local definitions in Isar with define x where "x = …" and unfold them with x_def. This makes your goals smaller and cleaner and decreases the probability of the automation going down useless paths in its proof search.
Isabelle does not automatically unfold definitions, so if you have a definition, and you want to unfold it for a proof, you have to do that yourself by using unfolding foo_def or simp add: foo_def.
The defining equations of functions defined with fun or primrec are unfolding by anything using the simplifier (simp, simp_all, force, auto) unless the equations (foo.simps) have manually been deleted from the simp set. (by lemmas [simp del] = foo.simps or declare [simp del] foo.simps)
Different proof methods are good at different things, and it takes some experience to know what method to use in what case. As a general rule, anything that requires only rewriting/simplification should be done with simp or simp_all. Anything related to classical reasoning (i.e. first-order logic or sets) calls for blast. If you need both rewriting and classical reasoning, try auto or force. Think of auto as a combination of simp and blast, and force is like an ‘all-or-nothing’ variant of auto that fails if it cannot solve the goal entirely. It also tries a little harder than auto.
Most proof methods can take options. You probably already know add: and del: for simp and simp_all, and the equivalent simp:/simp del: for auto. However, the classical reasoners (auto, blast, force, etc.) also accept intro:, dest:, elim: and the corresponding del: options. These are for declaring introduction, destruction, and elimination rules.
Some more information on the classical reasoner:
An introduction rule is a rule of the form P ⟹ Q ⟹ R that should be used whenever the goal has the form R, to replace it with P and Q
A destruction rule is a rule of the form P ⟹ Q ⟹ R that should be used whenever a fact of the form P is in the premises to replace to goal G with the new goals Q and R ⟹ G.
An elimination rule is something like thm exE (elimination of the existential quantifier). These are like a generalisation of destruction rules that also allow introducing new variables. These rules often appear in this like case distinctions.
The classical reasoner used by auto, blast, force etc. will use the rules in the claset (i.e. that have been declared intro/dest/elim) automatically whenever appropriate. If doing that does not lead to a proof, the automation will backtrack at some point and try other rules. You can disable backtracking for specific rules by using intro!: instead of intro: (and analogously for the others). Then the automation will apply that rule whenever possible without ever looking back.
The basic proof methods rule, drule, erule correspond to applying a single intro/dest/elim rule and are good for single step reasoning, e.g. in order to find out why automatic methods fail to make progress at a certain point. intro is like rule but applies the set of rules it is given iteratively until it is no longer possible.
safe and clarify are occasionally useful. The former essentially strips away quantifiers and logical connectives (try it on a goal like ∀x. P x ∧ Q x ⟶ R x) and the latter similarly tries to ‘clean up’ the goal. (I forgot what it does exactly, I just use it occasionally when I think it might be useful)
I have seen a lot of documentation about Isabelle's syntax and proof strategies. However, little have I found about its foundations. I have a few questions that I would be very grateful if someone could take the time to answer:
Why doesn't Isabelle/HOL admit functions that do not terminate? Many other languages such as Haskell do admit non-terminating functions.
What symbols are part of Isabelle's meta-language? I read that there are symbols in the meta-language for Universal Quantification (/\) and for implication (==>). However, these symbols have their counterpart in the object-level language (∀ and -->). I understand that --> is an object-level function of type bool => bool => bool. However, how are ∀ and ∃ defined? Are they object-level Boolean functions? If so, they are not computable (considering infinite domains). I noticed that I am able to write Boolean functions in therms of ∀ and ∃, but they are not computable. So what are ∀ and ∃? Are they part of the object-level? If so, how are they defined?
Are Isabelle theorems just Boolean expressions? Then Booleans are part of the meta-language?
As far as I know, Isabelle is a strict programming language. How can I use infinite objects? Let's say, infinite lists. Is it possible in Isabelle/HOL?
Sorry if these questions are very basic. I do not seem to find a good tutorial on Isabelle's meta-theory. I would love if someone could recommend me a good tutorial on these topics.
Thank you very much.
You can define non-terminating (i.e. partial) functions in Isabelle (cf. Function package manual (section 8)). However, partial functions are more difficult to reason about, because whenever you want to use its definition equations (the psimps rules, which replace the simps rules of a normal function), you have to show that the function terminates on that particular input first.
In general, things like non-definedness and non-termination are always problematic in a logic – consider, for instance, the function ‘definition’ f x = f x + 1. If we were to take this as an equation on ℤ (integers), we could subtract f x from both sides and get 0 = 1. In Haskell, this problem is ‘solved’ by saying that this is not an equation on ℤ, but rather on ℤ ∪ {⊥} (the integers plus bottom) and the non-terminating function f evaluates to ⊥, and ‘⊥ + 1 = ⊥’, so everything works out fine.
However, if every single expression in your logic could potentially evaluate to ⊥ instead of a ‘proper‘ value, reasoning in this logic will become very tedious. This is why Isabelle/HOL chooses to restrict itself to total functions; things like partiality have to be emulated with things like undefined (which is an arbitrary value that you know nothing about) or option types.
I'm not an expert on Isabelle/Pure (the meta logic), but the most important symbols are definitely
⋀ (the universal meta quantifier)
⟹ (meta implication)
≡ (meta equality)
&&& (meta conjunction, defined in terms of ⟹)
Pure.term, Pure.prop, Pure.type, Pure.dummy_pattern, Pure.sort_constraint, which fulfil certain internal functions that I don't know much about.
You can find some information on this in the Isabelle/Isar Reference Manual in section 2.1, and probably more elsewhere in the manual.
Everything else (that includes ∀ and ∃, which indeed operate on boolean expressions) is defined in the object logic (HOL, usually). You can find the definitions, of rather the axiomatisations, in ~~/src/HOL/HOL.thy (where ~~ denotes the Isabelle root directory):
All_def: "All P ≡ (P = (λx. True))"
Ex_def: "Ex P ≡ ∀Q. (∀x. P x ⟶ Q) ⟶ Q"
Also note that many, if not most Isabelle functions are typically not computable. Isabelle is not a programming language, although it does have a code generator that allows exporting Isabelle functions as code to programming languages as long as you can give code equations for all the functions involved.
3)
Isabelle theorems are a complex datatype (cf. ~~/src/Pure/thm.ML) containing a lot of information, but the most important part, of course, is the proposition. A proposition is something from Isabelle/Pure, which in fact only has propositions and functions. (and itself and dummy, but you can ignore those).
Propositions are not booleans – in fact, there isn't even a way to state that a proposition does not hold in Isabelle/Pure.
HOL then defines (or rather axiomatises) booleans and also axiomatises a coercion from booleans to propositions: Trueprop :: bool ⇒ prop
Isabelle is not a programming language, and apart from that, totality does not mean you have to restrict yourself to finite structures. Even in a total programming language, you can have infinite lists. (cf. Idris's codata)
Isabelle is a theorem prover, and logically, infinite objects can be treated by axiomatising them and then reasoning about them using the axioms and rules that you have.
For instance, HOL assumes the existence of an infinite type and defines the natural numbers on that. That already gives you access to functions nat ⇒ 'a, which are essentially infinite lists.
You can also define infinite lists and other infinite data structures as codatatypes with the (co-)datatype package, which is based on bounded natural functors.
Let me add some points to two of your questions.
1) Why doesn't Isabelle/HOL admit functions that do not terminate? Many other languages such as Haskell do admit non-terminating functions.
In short: Isabelle/HOL does not require termination, but totality (i.e., there is a specific result for each input to the function) of functions. Totality does not mean that a function is actually terminating when transcribed to a (functional) programming language or even that it is computable at all.
Therefore, talking about termination is somewhat misleading, even though it is encouraged by the fact that Isabelle/HOL's function package uses the keyword termination for proving some property P about which I will have to say a little more below.
On the one hand the term "termination" might sound more intuitive to a wider audience. On the other hand, a more precise description of P would be well-foundedness of the function's call graph.
Don't get me wrong, termination is not really a bad name for the property P, it is even justified by the fact that many techniques that are implemented in the function package are very close to termination techniques from term rewriting or functional programming (like the size-change principle, dependency pairs, lexicographic orders, etc.).
I'm just saying that it can be misleading. The answer to why that is the case also touches on question 4 of the OP.
4) As far as I know Isabelle is a strict programming language. How can I use infinite objects? Let's say, infinite lists. Is it possible in Isabelle/HOL?
Isabelle/HOL is not a programming language and it specifically does not have any evaluation strategy (we could alternatively say: it has any evaluation strategy you like).
And here is why the word termination is misleading (drum roll): if there is no evaluation strategy and we have termination of a function f, people might expect f to terminate independent of the used strategy. But this is not the case. A termination proof of a function rather ensures that f is well-defined. Even if f is computable a proof of P merely ensures that there is an evaluation strategy for which f terminates.
(As an aside: what I call "strategy" here, is typically influenced by so called cong-rules (i.e., congruence rules) in Isabelle/HOL.)
As an example, it is trivial to prove that the function (see Section 10.1 Congruence rules and evaluation order in the documentation of the function package):
fun f' :: "nat ⇒ bool"
where
"f' n ⟷ f' (n - 1) ∨ n = 0"
terminates (in the sense defined by termination) after adding the cong-rule:
lemma [fundef_cong]:
"Q = Q' ⟹ (¬ Q' ⟹ P = P') ⟹ (P ∨ Q) = (P' ∨ Q')"
by auto
Which essentially states that logical-or should be "evaluated" from right to left. However, if you write the same function e.g. in OCaml it causes a stack overflow ...
EDIT: this answer is not really correct, check out Lars' comment below.
Unfortunately I don't have enough reputation to post this as a comment, so here is my go at an answer (please bear in mind I am no expert in Isabelle, but I also had similar questions once):
1) The idea is to prove statements about the defined functions. I am not sure how familiar you are with Computability Theory, but think about the Halting Problem and the fact most undeciability problems stem from it (such as Acceptance Problem). Imagine defining a function which you can't prove it terminates. How could you then still prove it returns the number 42 when given input "ABC" and it doesn't go in an infinite loop?
If instead you limit yourself to terminating functions, you can prove much more about them, essentially making a trade-off (or at least this is how I see it).
These ideas stem from Constructivism and Intuitionism and I recommend you check out Robert Harper's very interesting lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SnefrwBIDc&list=PLGCr8P_YncjXRzdGq2SjKv5F2J8HUFeqN on Type Theory
You should check out especially the part about the absence of the Law of Excluded middle: http://youtu.be/3JHTb6b1to8?t=15m34s
2) See Manuel's answer.
3,4) Again see Manuel's answer keeping in mind Intuitionistic logic: "the fundamental entity is not the boolean, but rather the proof that something is true".
For me it took a long time to get adjusted to this way of thinking and I'm still not sure I understand it. I think the key though is to understand it is a more-or-less completely different way of thinking.
What is the difference between a Defintion and 'Let' in Coq? Why do some definitions require proofs?
For eg. This is a piece of code from g1.v in Group theory.
Definition exp : Z -> U -> U.
Proof.
intros n a.
elim n; clear n.
exact e.
intro n.
elim n; clear n.
exact a.
intros n valrec.
exact (star a valrec).
intro n; elim n; clear n.
exact (inv a).
intros n valrec.
exact (star (inv a) valrec).
Defined.
What is the aim of this proof?
I think what you're asking isn't really related to the difference between the Definition and Let commands in Coq. Instead, you seem to be wondering about why some definitions in Coq contain proof scripts.
One interesting feature of Coq is that the language that one uses for writing proofs and programs is actually the same. This language is known as Gallina, which is the programming language people work with when using Coq. When you write something like fun x => x + 5, that is a program in Gallina.
When doing proofs, however, people usually use another language, called Ltac. This is the language that appears in your exp example. This could lead you to believe that proofs in Coq are represented in a different language, but this is not true: what Ltac scripts do is to actually build proof terms in Gallina. You can see that by using the Print command, e.g.
Print exp.
The reason for having a separate language for writing proofs, even if proofs and programs are written in the same language, is that Gallina is a bit hard to use directly when writing proofs. Try using the Print command directly over a complicated theorem to see how hard that can be.
Now, even though Ltac is mostly meant for writing proofs, nothing forbids you from using it to write normal programs, since the end product is the same: a Gallina term. Usually, people prefer to use Gallina when writing programs because it is easier to read. However, people might resort to Ltac for writing programs when doing it directly in Gallina would be too cumbersome. I personally would prefer to use Gallina directly for writing functions such as exp in your example, although that's arguably a matter of taste.
Often times I have the problem that sledgehammer finds a proof, but when I insert it, it doesn't terminate. I guess sledgehammer is one of the most important parts of Isabelle, but then it gets annoying if a proof fails.
In the Sledgehammer tutorial,
there is a small chapter on "Why does Metis fail to reconstruct the proof?".
It lists:
Try the isar_proofs option to obtain a step-by-step Isar proof where
each step is justified by metis. Since the steps are fairly small,
metis is more likely to be able to replay them.
Try the smt proof method instead of metis. It is usually stronger,
but you need to either have Z3 available to replay the proofs, trust
the SMT solver, or use certificates.
Try the blast or auto proof methods, passing the necessary facts
via unfolding, using, intro:, elim:, dest:, or simp:, as
appropriate.
The problem is that the first option makes the proof more verbose and also it involves manual intervention.
The second option rarely works.
So what about the third option. Are there any easy to follow heuristics that I can apply?
What's the difference between unfolding and using? Also are there any best practices on how to use intro:, elim:, and dest: from a failed metis proof?
Partial EXAMPLE
proof-
have "(det (?lm)) = (det (transpose ?lm))" by (smt det_transpose)
then have "(det (?lm)) = [...][not shown]"
unfolding det_transpose transpose_mat_factor_col by auto
then show ?thesis [...][not shown]
qed
I would like to get rid of the first line of the proof, as the line seems trivial. If I remove the first line, sledgehammer will still find a proof, but this found proof fails (doesn't terminate).
Concerning your statement sledgehammer is one of the most important parts of Isabelle:
You never need sledgehammer to succeed with a proof. But of course sledgehammer is very convenient and can save a lot of tedious reasoning. Thus it is definitely a very important part for making Isabelle more usable for people who did not spend many years using it (and even for those sledgehammer makes everyday proving more productive).
Coming to your question
Try the blast or auto proof methods, passing the necessary facts via unfolding,
using, intro:, elim:, dest:, or simp:, as appropriate.
[...]
So what about [this] option. Are there any easy to follow heuristics that I can apply?
Indeed there are:
unfolding: This (recursively) unfolds equations, i.e., it is very similar to apply (simp only: ...). The heuristic is, when you do not get the expected result with simp: ... try unfolding ... instead (it might be the case that other equations are interfering).
using: This is used to add additional assumptions to the current subgoal. The heuristic is, whenever a fact does not fit one of the patterns below, try using instead.
intro:: This is used for introduction rules, i.e., of the form that whenever certain assumptions are satisfied some connective (or more generally constant) may be introduced.
Example: A ==> B ==> A & B (where the introduced constant is (&)).
elim:: This is used for elimination rules, i.e., of the form that from the presence of a certain connective (or more generally constant) some facts may be concluded as additional assumptions.
Example: A & B ==> (A ==> B ==> P) ==> P (where the constant (&) is eliminated in favor of explicitly having A and B as assumptions). Note the general form of the conclusion (which is not related to the major premise A & B), this is important to not loose provability (see also dest:).
dest:: This is used for destruction rules, i.e., of the form that from the presence of a certain constant some facts may be concluded directly.
Example: A & B ==> B (Note that the information that A holds is lost in the conclusion, unlike in the elim: example.)
simp:: This is used for simplification rules, i.e., (conditional) equations, which are always applied from left to right (thus it is sometimes useful to add [symmetric] to a fact, in order to apply it from right to left, but beware of nontermination, for it is easy to introduce looping derivations in this way).
Having said this, often it is just experience that lets you decide in which way best to employ a given fact inside a proof. What I usually do when I got a proof by sledgehammer which is too slow in Isar is to inspect the facts that where used by the found proof. Then categorize them as above, invoke auto appropriately and if that did not completely solve the goal, apply sledgehammer once more (hopefully delivering an "easier" proof this time).
You ask a number of questions, but I'll take your title and the second paragraph as the essence of your main complaint, where I end up giving a long-winded answer which can be summarized with,
Sledgehammer is part of a three-pronged arsenal,
you becoming more experienced, with never ending experimentation, along with trial and error is the heuristic,
not using many of the proofs which Sledgehammer returns is a big part of using Sledgehammer, and
the minimize and preplay_timeout options can save you some time and frustration by automatically playing the proofs back, which gives you timing information, and sometimes shows that a found proof will fail.
Starting with your second paragraph, you say:
Often times I have the problem that Sledgehammer finds a proof. But then I try it, but the proof doesn't terminate. I guess Sledgehammer is one of most important parts of Isabelle,...
Sledgehammer is important, but I consider it part of a three-pronged arsenal, where the three parts would be:
Detailed proof steps using natural deduction.
Automatic proof methods, such as auto, simp, rule, etc. A big part of this would be creating your own simp rewrite rules, and learning to use theorems with rule and the myriad of other automatic proof methods.
Sledgehammer calling automatic theorem provers (ATPs). Using steps 1 and 2, with experience, are used to set up Sledgehammer. Experience counts for a lot. You might use auto to simplify things so that Sledgehammer succeeds, but you might not use auto because it will expand formulas to where Sledgehammer has no chance of succeeding.
...but then it gets annoying if a proof fails.
So here, your expectations and my expectations for Sledgehammer diverge. These days, if I get annoyed, I get annoyed that I will have to work more than 30 seconds to prove a theorem. If I'm hugely disappointed that a particular Sledgehammer proof fails, it's because I've been trying to prove a theorem for hours or days without success.
Using Sledgehammer not to find proofs, but to find good proofs
Automation can sometimes alleviate frustration. Clicking on a Sledgehammer proof, only to find out that it fails, would be frustrating. Here is the way I currently use Sledgehammer, unless I start becoming desperate for a proof:
sledgehammer_params[minimize=smart,preplay_timeout=10,timeout=60,verbose=true,
max_relevant=smart,provers="
remote_vampire metis remote_satallax z3_tptp remote_e
remote_e_tofof spass remote_e_sine e z3 yices
"]
The options minimize=smart and preplay_timeout=10 are related to Sledgehammer playing back proofs, after it finds them. Not using many of the proofs that Sledgehammer finds is a big part of using Sledgehammer, and proof playback is a big part of culling out proofs.
Myself, I don't deal much with Sledgehammer proofs that don't terminate, but that's probably because I'm selective to begin with.
My first criteria for a Sledgehammer proof is that it be reasonably fast, and so when Sledgehammer reports that it's found a proof that's greater than 3 seconds long, I don't even try using it, unless I'm desperate to find out whether a theorem can be proved.
The use of Sledgehammer for me usually goes like this:
State a theorem and see if I get lucky with Sledgehammer.
If Sledgehammer gives me a proof that's 30 milliseconds or less, then I consider that good proof, but I still experiment with try and the automated proof methods of section 9.4.4, page 208, of isar-ref.pdf. Many times I can get a proof down to 5ms or less.
A metis proof of total time over 100ms, I'm willing to work 30 minutes or more to try and get a faster proof.
A metis proof of 200ms to 500ms, I'll resort to everything I know to try and get it down to below 100ms, which many times means converting to a detailed proof.
A smt or metis proof of greater than 1 second I only consider good as a temporary proof.
A proof in the output panel that Sledgehammer reports as being greater than 3 seconds, I usually don't even try, because even if it ends up working, I'm going to have to work to find another proof anyway, so I'd rather spend my time up front trying to find a good proof.
The option 3 heuristic
You say,
So what about the third option. Are there any easy to follow heuristics that I can apply?
The heuristic is:
"as appropriate",
which is to say that the heuristic is "use Sledgehammer as part of a three-pronged arsenal".
The heuristic is also "read lots of tutorials and documentation so that you have lots of other things to use with Sledgehammer". Sledgehammer is powerful, but it's not infinitely powerful, and for some theorems, you can use your own simp rules to prove in 0ms with apply(simp) or apply(auto) what Sledgehammer will never prove.
For myself, I'm up to about 150 to 200 theorems, so the "as appropriate" has much more meaning to me that it used to have. Basically, you try and set up Sledgehammer the way it needs to be set up.
The way Sledgehammer needs to be set up will sometimes mean running auto or simp first, but sometimes not, because many times running auto or simp will doom Sledgehammer to failure.
But sometimes, you don't even want a metis proof from Sledgehammer, except as a preliminary proof until you can find a better proof, which, for me, generally means a faster proof using the automatic proof methods.
I'm no authority on Sledgehammer, but it seems Sledgehammer is good at matching up hypotheses and conclusions from old theorems, with hypotheses and conclusions being used for a new theorem. What it's not good at is proving formulas which I've greatly expanded by using simp and auto.
I continue with the long-winded heuristic that is Sledgehammer centric:
Use Sledgehammer to jump-start the proof process, by proving some theorems with Sledgehammer that you otherwise don't know how to prove.
Turn your theorems which are equivalencies into simp rewrite rules for use with automatic proof methods like simp, auto, fastforce, etc., as described in chapter 9 of tutorial.pdf.
Use some of your theorems for conditional rewrite rules for use with intro and rule.
The last two steps are used to completely solve a proof step or used to set up Sledgehammer "as appropriate". Sledgehammer never ceases to be useful, no matter how much you know, and it's extremely useful when you don't know much, but Sledgehammer alone is not the road to success.
If Sledgehammer can't prove a theorem, then resort to a detailed proof, starting with a bare-bones detailed proof. Sometimes, breaking up an if-and-only-if into two conditionals allows Sledgehammer to easily prove the two conditionals, when it couldn't prove the if-and-only-if.
After you've proved lots of stuff, go back and optimize your proofs. Sometimes, with all the rewrite rules you've created, simp and auto will magically prove things, and you will get rid of some metis proofs that Sledgehammer found for you. Sometimes, you'll use Sledgehammer to find a metis proof that's even faster.
Use this command to optimize timing:
ML_command "Toplevel.timing := true"
There's another SO post giving more detail about it.
I can answer your subquestion "What's the difference between unfolding and using?". Roughly speaking, it works like this.
Suppose lemma foo is of the form x = a+b+c. If you write
unfolding foo
in your proof, then all occurrences of x will be replaced with a+b+c. On the other hand, if you write
using foo
then x=a+b+c will be added to your list of assumptions.