leanprover / leanprover/lean4

`refine'` elaborated to a type-incorrect term

Open
#4,763 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

bug P-low
Dominant language
Lean
Stars
9.2k
Forks
990
Avg merge
1d 17h
Merged PRs (30d)
175

Description

Prerequisites

Please put an X between the brackets as you perform the following steps:

Description

Playground

/-- info: Try this: ne_of_beq_false (Eq.refl false) -/
#guard_msgs (info) in
example : ¬0 = 0 := show_term by
  refine' ne_of_beq_false (by rfl : ↑_ = _)

/-- info: Try this: ne_of_beq_false (sorryAx ((0 == 0) = false) true) -/
#guard_msgs (info) in
example : ¬0 = 0 := show_term by
  refine ne_of_beq_false (by rfl : ↑_ = _)

/-- info: Try this: ne_of_beq_false (sorryAx ((0 == 0) = false) true) -/
#guard_msgs (info) in
example : ¬0 = 0 := show_term by
  refine' ne_of_beq_false (by rfl : _ = _)


/-- info: Try this: ne_of_beq_false (sorryAx ((0 == 0) = false) true) -/
#guard_msgs (info) in
example : ¬0 = 0 := show_term by
  refine' ne_of_beq_false (rfl : ↑_ = _)

The difference between the first and second examples seems attributable to withAssignableSyntheticOpaque.

Context

This was discovered while doing a tactic proof and not seeing an error message at the tactic.

Steps to Reproduce
  1. Build the above code or open it in an LSP-enabled editor or web playground

Expected behavior: The tactic fails in all cases, thus elaborating with sorry

Actual behavior: The tactic succeeds in the first case, elaborating to a type-incorrect term

Versions

4.10.0-rc2

Impact

Add 👍 to issues you consider important. If others are impacted by this issue, please ask them to add 👍 to it.

Contributor guide

Open the contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by running the minimal reproducible Lean code in the issue, either in a local build or the linked playground, and compare the four refine' and refine cases. Inspect the elaboration path involving refine' and withAssignableSyntheticOpaque. Done means the problematic case fails like the others instead of producing a type-incorrect term.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
compilers
Issue type
Bug
Difficulty
4/5
Estimated time
3-5 days
Activity status
Stale
Clarity
Clearly specified
Newbie friendliness
35/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.