And also rename the corresponding proof mode tactics.

This fact is deduced from reducibility. Unfortunately, this sometimes depends on the type of states being inhabited, so that this additional hypothesis sometimes appear.

rename program_logic.{ownership -> wsat}. It really is about world satisfaction and invariants more than about ownership.

(forgot to add this to the previous commit...)

This also solves a name clash with the extension order of CMRAs.

Before this commit, given "HP" : P and "H" : P -★ Q with Q persistent, one
could write:

  iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP")

to eliminate the wand in "H" while keeping the resource "HP". The lemma:

  own_valid : own γ x ⊢ ✓ x

was the prototypical example where this pattern (using the #) was used.

However, the pattern was too limited. For example, given "H" : P₁ -★ P₂ -★ Q",
one could not write iSpecialize ("H" with "#HP₁") because P₂ -★ Q is not
persistent, even when Q is.

So, instead, this commit introduces the following tactic:

  iSpecialize pm_trm as #

which allows one to eliminate implications and wands while being able to use
all hypotheses to prove the premises, as well as being able to use all
hypotheses to prove the resulting goal.

In the case of iDestruct, we now check whether all branches of the introduction
pattern start with an `#` (moving the hypothesis to the persistent context) or
`%` (moving the hypothesis to the pure Coq context). If this is the case, we
allow one to use all hypotheses for proving the premises, as well as for proving
the resulting goal.

I had to perform some renaming to avoid name clashes.

This also removes the double use of the name 'wp_fork' in both
program_logic/weakestpre and heap_lang/lifting.

NB: these scopes delimiters were already there before Janno's a0067662.

This is allowed as long as one of the conjuncts is thrown away (i.e. is a
wildcard _ in the introduction pattern). It corresponds to the principle of
"external choice" in linear logic.

Also, since do_head_step no longer has a purpose, I have removed it
and just use a bunch of eauto hints.

This is more consistent with CAS, which also can be used on any value.
Note that being able to (atomically) test for equality of any value and
being able to CAS on any value is not realistic. See the discussion at
https://gitlab.mpi-sws.org/FP/iris-coq/issues/26, and in particular JH
Jourdan's observation:

  I think indeed for heap_lang this is just too complicated.

  Anyway, the role of heap_lang is not to model any actual
  programming language, but rather to show that we can do proofs
  about certain programs. The fact that you can write unrealistic
  programs is not a problem, IMHO. The only thing which is important
  is that the program that we write are realistic (i.e., faithfully
  represents the algorithm we want to p

This commit is based on a commit by Zhen Zhang who generalized equality
to work on any literal (and not just integers).

They are redundant because frac is discrete.