lean-proof

Lean Proof Methodology

These are non-negotiable constraints for writing Lean proofs correctly.

One Step at a Time

Write one tactic, check diagnostics (use done to see unsolved goals), repeat. Never write multiple tactics before checking.

by sorry is acceptable: For placeholders you're not actively working on. done is required: When you expect there to be next steps in an active proof.

Error Priority

Fix errors in this order — higher-priority errors make lower-priority ones unreliable:

1. Syntax errors → 2. Type errors → 3. Unsolved goals / tactic failures → 4. Linter warnings

"Unsolved goals" errors appear on by or => lines, NOT where you add tactics. If there's an "unsolved goals" on line 59 but a tactic error on line 65 — fix line 65 FIRST.

Stop writing tactics after any error.

Work on the Hardest Case First

Across Theorems

Go directly to the target theorem. Don't fill in sorrys in helper lemmas first — Lean treats sorry as an axiom, so dependent theorems still work.

Move sorries earlier in the file by replacing a sorry proof with references to simpler lemmas:

-- Before:
theorem main_theorem : A = C := by sorry

-- After:
theorem lemma1 : A = B := by sorry
theorem lemma2 : B = C := by sorry
theorem main_theorem : A = C := by
  rw [lemma1, lemma2]

Within a Proof

When a proof has multiple cases, sorry the easy cases and work on the hardest one first. If the hard case fails, effort on easy cases is wasted.

match n with
| 0 => sorry -- fill in later
| 1 => sorry -- fill in later
| n + 2 => -- WORK ON THIS FIRST

Proof Cleanup

After getting a proof to work, clean it up immediately:

• Combine redundant steps (rw [a]; rw [b] → rw [a, b])
• Test if simp can handle more (remove earlier steps one by one)
• Find the truly minimal proof

Dependent Type Rewriting Issues

When you encounter "motive is not type correct" or similar errors during rewriting:

The Problem

Rewriting a term b that appears in dependent types (like hab : a ≤ b) fails because the motive cannot abstract over the dependencies.

have hb : b = f x
rw [hb]  -- Error: motive is not type correct

The Solution: Generalize First, Instantiate Last

Prove a generalized statement for an arbitrary parameter, then instantiate:

suffices ∀ s, statement_about s by
  have h_specific := the_equality_you_have
  convert this ?_ <;> exact h_specific
intro s
-- Now prove the general statement for arbitrary s

This works because the generalized statement has no dependencies on the problematic term, and convert handles the dependent type coercions at the end.

Verification

Never declare a proof complete while sorry placeholders or error diagnostics remain.