Major Section: SYNTAXP

See syntaxp for a basic discussion of the use of `syntaxp`

to control
rewriting.

A common syntactic restriction is

(SYNTAXP (AND (CONSP X) (EQ (CAR X) 'QUOTE)))or, equivalently,

(SYNTAXP (QUOTEP X)).A rule with such a hypothesis can be applied only if

`x`

is bound to
a specific constant. Thus, if `x`

is `23`

(which is actually
represented internally as `(quote 23)`

), the test evaluates to `t`

; but
if `x`

prints as `(+ 11 12)`

then the test evaluates to `nil`

(because `(car x)`

is the symbol `binary-+`

). We see the use
of this restriction in the rule
(implies (and (syntaxp (quotep c)) (syntaxp (quotep d))) (equal (+ c d x) (+ (+ c d) x))).If

`c`

and `d`

are constants, then the
`executable-counterpart`

of `binary-+`

will evaluate the sum
of `c`

and `d`

. For instance, under the influence of this rule
(+ 11 12 foo)rewrites to

(+ (+ 11 12) foo)which in turn rewrites to

`(+ 23 foo)`

. Without the syntactic
restriction, this rule would loop with the built-in rules
`ASSOCIATIVITY-OF-+`

or `COMMUTATIVITY-OF-+`

.We here recommend that the reader try the affects of entering expressions such as the following at the top level ACL2 prompt.

(+ 11 23) (+ '11 23) (+ '11 '23) (+ ''11 ''23) :trans (+ 11 23) :trans (+ '11 23) :trans (+ ''11 23) :trans (+ c d x) :trans (+ (+ c d) x)We also recommend that the reader verify our claim above about looping by trying the affect of each of the following rules individually.

(defthm good (implies (and (syntaxp (quotep c)) (syntaxp (quotep d))) (equal (+ c d x) (+ (+ c d) x))))on (the false) theorems:(defthm bad (implies (and (acl2-numberp c) (acl2-numberp d)) (equal (+ c d x) (+ (+ c d) x))))

(thm (equal (+ 11 12 x) y))One can use(thm (implies (and (acl2-numberp c) (acl2-numberp d) (acl2-numberp x)) (equal (+ c d x) y))).

`:`

`brr`

, perhaps in conjunction with
`cw-gstack`

, to investigate any looping.
Here is a simple example showing the value of rule `good`

above. Without
`good`

, the `thm`

form below fails.

(defstub foo (x) t)(thm (equal (foo (+ 3 4 x)) (foo (+ 7 x))))

The next three examples further explore the use of `quote`

in
`syntaxp`

hypotheses.

We continue the examples of `syntaxp`

hypotheses with a rule from
`books/finite-set-theory/set-theory.lisp`

. We will not discuss
here the meaning of this rule, but it is necessary to point out that
`(ur-elementp nil)`

is true in this book.

(defthm scons-nil (implies (and (syntaxp (not (equal a ''nil))) (ur-elementp a)) (= (scons e a) (scons e nil)))).Here also,

`syntaxp`

is used to prevent looping. Without the
restriction, `(scons e nil)`

would be rewritten to itself since
`(ur-elementp nil)`

is true.Question: Why the use of two quotes in

`''nil`

?Hints:

`Nil`

is a constant just as 23 is. Try `:trans (cons a nil)`

,
`:trans (cons 'a 'nil)`

, and `:trans (cons ''a ''nil)`

.
Also, don't forget that the arguments to a function are evaluated before
the function is applied.The next two rules move negative constants to the other side of an inequality.

(defthm |(< (+ (- c) x) y)| (implies (and (syntaxp (quotep c)) (syntaxp (< (cadr c) 0)) (acl2-numberp y)) (equal (< (+ c x) y) (< (fix x) (+ (- c) y)))))Questions: What would happen if(defthm |(< y (+ (- c) x))| (implies (and (syntaxp (quotep c)) (syntaxp (< (cadr c) 0)) (acl2-numberp y)) (equal (< y (+ c x)) (< (+ (- c) y) (fix x)))))

`(< (cadr c) '0)`

were used?
What about `(< (cadr c) ''0)`

?
One can also use `syntaxp`

to restrict the application of a rule
to a particular set of variable bindings as in the following taken from
`books/ihs/quotient-remainder-lemmas.lisp`

.

(encapsulate ()We recommend the use of(local (defthm floor-+-crock (implies (and (real/rationalp x) (real/rationalp y) (real/rationalp z) (syntaxp (and (eq x 'x) (eq y 'y) (eq z 'z)))) (equal (floor (+ x y) z) (floor (+ (+ (mod x z) (mod y z)) (* (+ (floor x z) (floor y z)) z)) z)))))

(defthm floor-+ (implies (and (force (real/rationalp x)) (force (real/rationalp y)) (force (real/rationalp z)) (force (not (equal z 0)))) (equal (floor (+ x y) z) (+ (floor (+ (mod x z) (mod y z)) z) (+ (floor x z) (floor y z))))))

)

`:`

`brr`

to investigate the use of
`floor-+-crock`

.Another useful restriction is defined by

(defun rewriting-goal-literal (x mfc state)We use this restriction in the rule;; Are we rewriting a top-level goal literal, rather than rewriting ;; to establish a hypothesis from a rewrite (or other) rule?

(declare (ignore x state)) (null (access metafunction-context mfc :ancestors))).

(defthm |(< (* x y) 0)| (implies (and (syntaxp (rewriting-goal-literal x mfc state)) (rationalp x) (rationalp y)) (equal (< (* x y) 0) (cond ((equal x 0) nil) ((equal y 0) nil) ((< x 0) (< 0 y)) ((< 0 x) (< y 0))))))which has been found to be useful, but which also leads to excessive thrashing in the linear arithmetic package if used indiscriminately.

See extended-metafunctions for information on the use of `mfc`

and `metafunction-context`

.