Hol_defn : string -> term quotation -> defn
STRUCTURE
bossLib
SYNOPSIS
General-purpose function definition facility.
DESCRIPTION
Hol_defn allows one to define functions, recursive functions in particular, while deferring termination issues. Hol_defn should be used when Define or xDefine fails, or when the context required by Define or xDefine is too much.

Hol_defn takes the same arguments as xDefine.

Hol_defn s q automatically constructs termination constraints for the function specified by q, defines the function, derives the specified equations, and proves an induction theorem. All these results are packaged up in the returned defn value. The defn type is best thought of as an intermediate step in the process of deriving the unconstrained equations and induction theorem for the function.

The termination conditions constructed by Hol_defn are for a function that takes a single tuple as an argument. This is an artifact of the way that recursive functions are modelled.

A prettyprinter, which prints out a summary of the known information on the results of Hol_defn, has been installed in the interactive system.

Hol_defn may be found in bossLib and also in Defn.

FAILURE
Hol_defn s q fails if s is not an alphanumeric identifier.

Hol_defn s q fails if q fails to parse or typecheck.

Hol_defn may extract unsatisfiable termination conditions when asked to define a higher-order recursion involving a higher-order function that the termination condition extraction mechanism of Hol_defn is unaware of.

EXAMPLE
Here we attempt to define a quick-sort function qsort: 
   - Hol_defn "qsort"
         `(qsort ___ [] = []) /\
          (qsort ord (x::rst) =
             APPEND (qsort ord (FILTER ($~ o ord x) rst))
               (x :: qsort ord (FILTER (ord x) rst)))`;

   <<HOL message: inventing new type variable names: 'a>>
   > val it =
       HOL function definition (recursive)

       Equation(s) :
        [...]
       |- (qsort v0 [] = []) /\
          (qsort ord (x::rst) =
           APPEND (qsort ord (FILTER ($~ o ord x) rst))
             (x::qsort ord (FILTER (ord x) rst)))

       Induction :
        [...]
       |- !P.
            (!v0. P v0 []) /\
            (!ord x rst.
               P ord (FILTER ($~ o ord x) rst) /\
               P ord (FILTER (ord x) rst) ==> P ord (x::rst))
              ==> !v v1. P v v1

       Termination conditions :
         0. WF R
         1. !rst x ord. R (ord,FILTER ($~ o ord x) rst) (ord,x::rst)
         2. !rst x ord. R (ord,FILTER (ord x) rst) (ord,x::rst)
In the following we give an example of how to use Hol_defn to define a nested recursion. In processing this definition, an auxiliary function N_aux is defined. The termination conditions of N are phrased in terms of N_aux for technical reasons. 
   - Hol_defn "ninety1"
       `N x = if x>100 then x-10
                       else N(N(x+11))`;

   > val it =
       HOL function definition (nested recursion)

       Equation(s) :
        [...] |- N x = (if x > 100 then x - 10 else N (N (x + 11)))

       Induction :
        [...]
       |- !P.
            (!x. (~(x > 100) ==> P (x + 11)) /\
                 (~(x > 100) ==> P (N (x + 11))) ==> P x)
            ==>
             !v. P v

       Termination conditions :
         0. WF R
         1. !x. ~(x > 100) ==> R (x + 11) x
         2. !x. ~(x > 100) ==> R (N_aux R (x + 11)) x
COMMENTS
An invocation of Hol_defn is usually the first step in a multi-step process that ends with unconstrained recursion equations for a function, along with an induction theorem. Hol_defn is used to construct the function and synthesize its termination conditions; next, one invokes tgoal to set up a goal to prove termination of the function. The termination proof usually starts with an invocation of WF_REL_TAC. After the proof is over, the desired recursion equations and induction theorem are available for further use.

It is occasionally important to understand, at least in part, how Hol_defn constructs termination constraints. In some cases, it is necessary for users to influence this process in order to have correct termination constraints extracted. The process is driven by so-called congruence theorems for particular HOL constants. For example, suppose we were interested in defining a ‘destructor-style‘ version of the factorial function over natural numbers: 

   fact n = if n=0 then 1 else n * fact (n-1).

In the absence of a congruence theorem for the ‘if-then-else‘ construct, Hol_defn would extract the termination constraints 

   0. WF R
   1. !n. R (n - 1) n

which are unprovable, because the context of the recursive call has not been taken account of. This example is in fact not a problem for HOL, since the following congruence theorem is known to Hol_defn: 

   |- !b b' x x' y y'.
         (b = b') /\
         (b' ==> (x = x')) /\
         (~b' ==> (y = y')) ==>
         ((if b then x else y) = (if b' then x' else y'))

This theorem is interpreted by Hol_defn as an ordered sequence of instructions to follow when the termination condition extractor hits an ‘if-then-else‘. The theorem is read as follows: 

   When an instance `if B then X else Y` is encountered while the
   extractor traverses the function definition, do the following:

     1. Go into B and extract termination conditions TCs(B) from
        any recursive calls in it. This returns a theorem
        TCs(B) |- B = B'.

     2. Assume B' and extract termination conditions from any
        recursive calls in X. This returns a theorem
        TCs(X) |- X = X'. Each element of TCs(X) will have
        the form "B' ==> M".

     3. Assume ~B' and extract termination conditions from any
        recursive calls in Y. This returns a theorem
        TCs(Y) |- Y = Y'. Each element of TCs(Y) will have
        the form "~B' ==> M".

     4. By equality reasoning with (1), (2), and (3), derive

            TCs(B) u TCs(X) u TCs(Y)
             |-
            (if B then X else Y) = (if B' then X' else Y')

     5. Replace "if B then X else Y" by "if B' then X' else Y'".

The accumulated termination conditions are propagated until the extraction process finishes, and appear as hypotheses in the final result. In our example, context is properly accounted for in recursive calls under either branch of an ‘if-then-else‘. Thus the extracted termination conditions for fact are 

   0. WF R
   1. !n. ~(n = 0) ==> R (n - 1) n
and are easy to prove.

Now we discuss congruence theorems for higher-order functions. A ‘higher-order‘ recursion is one in which a higher-order function is used to apply the recursive function to arguments. In order for the correct termination conditions to be proved for such a recursion, congruence rules for the higher order function must be known to the termination condition extraction mechanism. Congruence rules for common higher-order functions, e.g., MAP, EVERY, and EXISTS for lists, are already known to the mechanism. However, at times, one must manually prove and install a congruence theorem for a higher-order function.

For example, suppose we define a higher-order function SIGMA for summing the results of a function in a list. We then use SIGMA in the definition of a function for summing the results of a function in a arbitrarily (finitely) branching tree. 

   - Define `(SIGMA f [] = 0) /\
             (SIGMA f (h::t) = f h + SIGMA f t)`;


   - Hol_datatype `ltree = Node of 'a => ltree list`;
   > val it = () : unit

   - Defn.Hol_defn  
        "ltree_sigma"     (* higher order recursion *)
        `ltree_sigma f (Node v tl) = f v + SIGMA (ltree_sigma f) tl`;

   > val it =
     HOL function definition (recursive)

       Equation(s) :
        [..] |- ltree_sigma f (Node v tl)
                  = f v + SIGMA (\a. ltree_sigma f a) tl

       Induction :
        [..] |- !P. (!f v tl. (!a. P f a) ==> P f (Node v tl))
                    ==> !v v1. P v v1

       Termination conditions :
         0. WF R
         1. !tl v f a. R (f,a) (f,Node v tl) : defn
The termination conditions for ltree_sigma seem to require finding a well-founded relation R such that the pair (f,a) is R-less than (f, Node v tl). However, this is a hopeless task, since there is no relation between a and Node v tl, besides the fact that they are both ltrees. The termination condition extractor has not performed properly, because it didn’t know a congruence rule for SIGMA. Such a congruence theorem is the following: 
   SIGMA_CONG =
    |- !l1 l2 f g.
         (l1=l2) /\ (!x. MEM x l2 ==> (f x = g x)) ==>
         (SIGMA f l1 = SIGMA g l2)
Once Hol_defn has been told about this theorem, via write_congs, the termination conditions extracted for the definition are provable, since a is a proper subterm of Node v tl. 
   - local open DefnBase
     in
     val _ = write_congs (SIGMA_CONG::read_congs())
     end;

   - Defn.Hol_defn
        "ltree_sigma"
        `ltree_sigma f (Node v tl) = f v + SIGMA (ltree_sigma f) tl`;

   > val it =
       HOL function definition (recursive)

       Equation(s) :  ...  (* as before *)
       Induction :    ...  (* as before *)

       Termination conditions :
         0. WF R
         1. !v f tl a. MEM a tl ==> R (f,a) (f,Node v tl)

One final point : for every HOL datatype defined by application of Hol_datatype, a congruence theorem is automatically proved for the ‘case’ constant for that type, and stored in the TypeBase. For example, the following congruence theorem for num_case is stored in the TypeBase: 

    |- !f' f b' b M' M.
         (M = M') /\
         ((M' = 0) ==> (b = b')) /\
         (!n. (M' = SUC n) ==> (f n = f' n))
        ==>
         (num_case b f M = num_case b' f' M')
This allows the contexts of recursive calls in branches of ‘case’ expressions to be tracked.
SEEALSO
tgoal, tprove, WF_REL_TAC, Define, xDefine, Hol_datatype
HOL  Kananaskis-10