Lemma Discovery Assistant

Lemma Discovery Assistant

Analyze stuck or failed proofs and propose auxiliary lemmas that can help complete the proof.

Overview

When proofs fail or get stuck, the issue is often a missing auxiliary lemma. This skill helps identify what lemmas are needed by:

1. Analyzing the current proof state and goal
2. Identifying gaps in reasoning
3. Proposing auxiliary lemmas with precise statements
4. Suggesting proof strategies for the lemmas
5. Explaining how the lemmas help the main proof

When Proofs Get Stuck

Common Symptoms

Unprovable subgoal:

• Tactics fail to make progress
• Goal seems "obviously true" but won't prove
• Missing connection between hypotheses and goal

Weak induction hypothesis:

• Induction step fails
• Need stronger property to prove
• Generalization required

Missing intermediate steps:

• Large gap between current state and goal
• Need stepping stones
• Complex reasoning required

Insufficient rewrite rules:

• Simplification doesn't go far enough
• Need additional equations
• Definitions need unfolding lemmas

Lemma Discovery Process

Step 1: Analyze Proof State

Examine the current proof context:

What to look for:

• Current goal statement
• Available hypotheses/assumptions
• Failed tactic and error message
• Proof structure (induction, case analysis, etc.)
• Type information and constraints

Questions to ask:

• What is the proof trying to show?
• What information is available?
• What is missing?
• Why did the tactic fail?

Step 2: Identify the Gap

Determine what's preventing progress:

Gap types:

• Property gap: Need to establish intermediate property
• Generalization gap: Current statement too specific
• Rewrite gap: Need equation to simplify
• Structural gap: Need lemma about data structure
• Induction gap: Induction hypothesis too weak

Step 3: Propose Lemma Statement

Formulate precise lemma statement:

Lemma characteristics:

• Precise: Exact types and conditions
• General: Not overly specific to one case
• Provable: Can be proven independently
• Useful: Actually helps the main proof

Example patterns:

(* Isabelle *)
lemma helper_name: "⟦ assumptions ⟧ ⟹ conclusion"

(* Coq *)
Lemma helper_name : assumptions → conclusion.

Step 4: Suggest Proof Strategy

Provide guidance on proving the lemma:

Strategy types:

• Induction (structural, well-founded, strong)
• Case analysis
• Rewriting and simplification
• Unfolding definitions
• Using existing lemmas

Step 5: Explain Usage

Show how the lemma helps the main proof:

• Where to apply it
• What tactic to use
• How it closes the gap

Lemma Patterns by Proof Type

Inductive Proofs

Problem: Induction hypothesis too weak.

Solution: Strengthen the induction hypothesis.

Example (Isabelle):

Stuck proof:

lemma "length (reverse xs) = length xs"
proof (induction xs)
  case Nil
  then show ?case by simp
next
  case (Cons x xs)
  (* Stuck: reverse (x # xs) = reverse xs @ [x]
     but we don't have a lemma about length of append *)
  then show ?case sorry
qed

Proposed lemma:

lemma length_append: "length (xs @ ys) = length xs + length ys"
proof (induction xs)
  case Nil
  then show ?case by simp
next
  case (Cons x xs)
  then show ?case by simp
qed

Usage: Apply length_append in the induction step.

Generalization Lemmas

Problem: Statement too specific to prove by induction.

Solution: Generalize with accumulator or additional parameter.

Example (Coq):

Stuck proof:

Fixpoint reverse {A} (l : list A) : list A :=
  match l with
  | [] => []
  | x :: xs => reverse xs ++ [x]
  end.

Lemma reverse_involutive : forall A (l : list A),
  reverse (reverse l) = l.
Proof.
  induction l.
  - reflexivity.
  - simpl. (* Stuck: need reverse (reverse l ++ [a]) = a :: l *)
Abort.

Proposed lemma:

Lemma reverse_append : forall A (l1 l2 : list A),
  reverse (l1 ++ l2) = reverse l2 ++ reverse l1.
Proof.
  induction l1; intros; simpl.
  - rewrite app_nil_r. reflexivity.
  - rewrite IHl1. rewrite app_assoc. reflexivity.
Qed.

Usage: Use reverse_append to handle the append in the goal.

Rewrite Lemmas

Problem: Simplification doesn't reach desired form.

Solution: Add rewrite rules for specific patterns.

Example (Isabelle):

Stuck proof:

lemma "map f (map g xs) = map (f ∘ g) xs"
proof (induction xs)
  case Nil
  then show ?case by simp
next
  case (Cons x xs)
  (* Need: (f ∘ g) x = f (g x) *)
  then show ?case sorry
qed

Proposed lemma:

lemma comp_apply: "(f ∘ g) x = f (g x)"
  by (simp add: comp_def)

Usage: Add to simplification set or apply explicitly.

Structural Lemmas

Problem: Need properties about data structure operations.

Solution: Prove fundamental properties of the structure.

Example (Coq):

Stuck proof:

Fixpoint insert (x : nat) (t : tree) : tree := (* ... *)

Lemma insert_member : forall x t,
  member x (insert x t) = true.
Proof.
  induction t.
  - (* Stuck: need properties of member and insert *)
Abort.

Proposed lemmas:

Lemma member_insert_eq : forall x y t,
  x = y → member x (insert y t) = true.

Lemma member_insert_neq : forall x y t,
  x ≠ y → member x (insert y t) = member x t.

Lemma member_insert : forall x y t,
  member x (insert y t) = (x =? y) || member x t.

Usage: Case split on x = y and apply appropriate lemma.

Framework-Specific Guidance

Isabelle/HOL Lemma Discovery

For Isabelle-specific lemma patterns, tactics, and the sledgehammer tool, see references/isabelle_lemmas.md.

Key features:

• Sledgehammer for automatic lemma discovery
• try and try0 for tactic exploration
• Simplification set management
• Induction and case analysis patterns