# DEPRECATED: Interactive Theorem Proving Using Old Tactics Code¶

Warning

The interactive theorem-proving interface documented here has been deprecated in favor of Elaborator Reflection.

Idris also supports interactive theorem proving via tactics. This is generally not recommended to be used directly, but rather used as a mechanism for building proof automation which is beyond the scope of this tutorial. In this section, we briefly discus tactics.

One way to write proofs interactively is to write the general structure of the proof, and use the interactive mode to complete the details. Consider the following definition, proved in Theorem Proving:

plusReduces : (n:Nat) -> plus Z n = n


We’ll be constructing the proof by induction, so we write the cases for Z and S, with a recursive call in the S case giving the inductive hypothesis, and insert holes for the rest of the definition:

plusReducesZ' : (n:Nat) -> n = plus n Z
plusReducesZ' Z     = ?plusredZ_Z
plusReducesZ' (S k) = let ih = plusReducesZ' k in
?plusredZ_S


On running , two global names are created, plusredZ_Z and plusredZ_S, with no definition. We can use the :m command at the prompt to find out which holes are still to be solved (or, more precisely, which functions exist but have no definitions), then the :t command to see their types:

*theorems> :m
Global holes:
[plusredZ_S,plusredZ_Z]

*theorems> :t plusredZ_Z
plusredZ_Z : Z = plus Z Z

*theorems> :t plusredZ_S
plusredZ_S : (k : Nat) -> (k = plus k Z) -> S k = plus (S k) Z


The :p command enters interactive proof mode, which can be used to complete the missing definitions.

*theorems> :p plusredZ_Z

---------------------------------- (plusredZ_Z) --------
{hole0} : Z = plus Z Z


This gives us a list of premises (above the line; there are none here) and the current goal (below the line; named {hole0} here). At the prompt we can enter tactics to direct the construction of the proof. In this case, we can normalise the goal with the compute tactic:

-plusredZ_Z> compute

---------------------------------- (plusredZ_Z) --------
{hole0} : Z = Z


Now we have to prove that Z equals Z, which is easy to prove by Refl. To apply a function, such as Refl, we use refine which introduces subgoals for each of the function’s explicit arguments (Refl has none):

-plusredZ_Z> refine Refl
plusredZ_Z: no more goals


Here, we could also have used the trivial tactic, which tries to refine by Refl, and if that fails, tries to refine by each name in the local context. When a proof is complete, we use the qed tactic to add the proof to the global context, and remove the hole from the unsolved holes list. This also outputs a trace of the proof:

-plusredZ_Z> qed
plusredZ_Z = proof
compute
refine Refl

*theorems> :m
Global holes:
[plusredZ_S]


The :addproof command, at the interactive prompt, will add the proof to the source file (effectively in an appendix). Let us now prove the other required lemma, plusredZ_S:

*theorems> :p plusredZ_S

---------------------------------- (plusredZ_S) --------
{hole0} : (k : Nat) -> (k = plus k Z) -> S k = plus (S k) Z


In this case, the goal is a function type, using k (the argument accessible by pattern matching) and ih — the local variable containing the result of the recursive call. We can introduce these as premises using the intro tactic twice (or intros, which introduces all arguments as premises). This gives:

  k : Nat
ih : k = plus k Z
---------------------------------- (plusredZ_S) --------
{hole2} : S k = plus (S k) Z


Since plus is defined by recursion on its first argument, the term plus (S k) Z in the goal can be simplified, so we use compute.

  k : Nat
ih : k = plus k Z
---------------------------------- (plusredZ_S) --------
{hole2} : S k = S (plus k Z)


We know, from the type of ih, that k = plus k Z, so we would like to use this knowledge to replace plus k Z in the goal with k. We can achieve this with the rewrite tactic:

-plusredZ_S> rewrite ih

k : Nat
ih : k = plus k Z
---------------------------------- (plusredZ_S) --------
{hole3} : S k = S k

-plusredZ_S>


The rewrite tactic takes an equality proof as an argument, and tries to rewrite the goal using that proof. Here, it results in an equality which is trivially provable:

-plusredZ_S> trivial
plusredZ_S: no more goals
-plusredZ_S> qed
plusredZ_S = proof {
intros;
rewrite ih;
trivial;
}


Again, we can add this proof to the end of our source file using the :addproof command at the interactive prompt.