theory Introspection
imports "../Appendix"
begin
section {* Introspection of Theorems and Proofs \label{rec:introspection} *}
text{*
{\bf Problem:}
How to obtain all theorems that are used in the proof of a theorem?\smallskip
{\bf Solution:} They can be obtained by introspecting the theorem.\smallskip
To introspect a theorem, let us define the following three functions that
analyse the @{ML_type proof_body} data-structure from the structure
@{ML_struct Proofterm}.
*}
ML %grayML{*fun pthms_of (PBody {thms, ...}) = map #2 thms
val get_names = map #1 o pthms_of
val get_pbodies = map (Future.join o #3) o pthms_of *}
text {*
To see what their purpose is, consider the following three short proofs.
*}
lemma my_conjIa:
shows "A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A \<and> B"
apply(rule conjI)
apply(drule conjunct1)
apply(assumption)
apply(drule conjunct2)
apply(assumption)
done
lemma my_conjIb:
shows "A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A \<and> B"
apply(assumption)
done
lemma my_conjIc:
shows "A \<and> B \<Longrightarrow> A \<and> B"
apply(auto)
done
text {*
While the information about which theorems are used is obvious in
the first two proofs, it is not obvious in the third, because of the
@{text auto}-step. Fortunately, ``behind'' every proved theorem is
a proof-tree that records all theorems that are employed for
establishing this theorem. We can traverse this proof-tree
extracting this information. Let us first extract the name of the
established theorem. This can be done with
@{ML_response [display,gray]
"@{thm my_conjIa}
|> Thm.proof_body_of
|> get_names"
"[\"Introspection.my_conjIa\"]"}
whereby @{text "Introspection"} refers to the theory name in which
we established the theorem @{thm [source] my_conjIa}. The function @{ML_ind
proof_body_of in Thm} returns a part of the data that is stored in a
theorem. Notice that the apply-proof of this theorem references
three theorems, namely @{thm [source] conjI}, @{thm [source] conjunct1}
and @{thm [source] conjunct2}. We can obtain them by descending into the
first level of the proof-tree, as follows.
@{ML_response [display,gray]
"@{thm my_conjIa}
|> Thm.proof_body_of
|> get_pbodies
|> map get_names
|> List.concat"
"[\"HOL.conjunct2\", \"HOL.conjunct1\", \"HOL.conjI\", \"Pure.protectD\",
\"Pure.protectI\"]"}
Note the theorems @{thm [source] protectD} and @{thm [source]
protectI} that are internal theorems which are always part of a
proof in Isabelle. Note also that applications of @{text assumption} do not
count as a separate theorem, as you can see in the following code.
@{ML_response [display,gray]
"@{thm my_conjIb}
|> Thm.proof_body_of
|> get_pbodies
|> map get_names
|> List.concat"
"[\"Pure.protectD\", \"Pure.protectI\"]"}
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the proof of @{thm [source]
my_conjIc} procceeds quite differently from @{thm [source] my_conjIa}
and @{thm [source] my_conjIb}, as can be seen next.
@{ML_response [display,gray]
"@{thm my_conjIc}
|> Thm.proof_body_of
|> get_pbodies
|> map get_names
|> List.concat"
"[\"HOL.Eq_TrueI\", \"HOL.simp_thms_25\", \"HOL.eq_reflection\",
\"HOL.conjunct2\", \"HOL.conjunct1\", \"HOL.TrueI\", \"Pure.protectD\",
\"Pure.protectI\"]"}
Of course we can also descend into the second level of the tree
``behind'' @{thm [source] my_conjIa}, which
means we obtain the theorems that are used in order to prove
@{thm [source] conjunct1}, @{thm [source] conjunct2} and @{thm [source] conjI}.
@{ML_response [display, gray]
"@{thm my_conjIa}
|> Thm.proof_body_of
|> get_pbodies
|> map get_pbodies
|> (map o map) get_names
|> List.concat
|> List.concat
|> duplicates (op=)"
"[\"HOL.spec\", \"HOL.and_def\", \"HOL.mp\", \"HOL.impI\", \"Pure.protectD\",
\"Pure.protectI\"]"}
\begin{readmore}
The data-structure @{ML_type proof_body} is implemented
in the file @{ML_file "Pure/proofterm.ML"}. The implementation
of theorems and related functions are in @{ML_file "Pure/thm.ML"}.
\end{readmore}
*}
end