I'm currently trying use Isabelle/HOL's reification tactic. I'm unable to use different interpretation functions below quantifiers/lambdas. The below MWE illustrates this. The important part is the definition of the form function, where the ter call occurs below the ∀. When trying to use the reify tactic I get an Cannot find the atoms equation error. I don't get this error for interpretation functions which only call themselves under quantifiers.
I can't really reformulate my problem to avoid this. Does anybody know how to get reify working for such cases?
theory MWE
imports
"HOL-Library.Reflection"
begin
datatype Ter = V nat | P Ter Ter
datatype Form = All0 Ter
fun ter :: "Ter ⇒ nat list ⇒ nat"
where "ter (V n) vs = vs ! n"
| "ter (P t1 t2) vs = ter t1 vs + ter t2 vs"
fun form :: "Form ⇒ nat list ⇒ bool"
where "form (All0 t) vs = (∀ v . ter t (v#vs) = 0)" (* use of different interpretation function below quantifier *)
(*
I would expect this to reify to:
form (All0 (P (V 0) (V 0))) []
instead I get an error :-(
*)
lemma "∀ n :: nat . n + n = 0"
apply (reify ter.simps form.simps)
(* proof (prove)
goal (1 subgoal):
1. ∀n. n + n = n + n
Cannot find the atoms equation *)
oops
(* As a side note: the following example in src/HOL/ex/Reflection_Examples.thy (line 448, Isabelle2022) seems to be broken? For me, the reify invocation
doesn't change the goal at all. It uses quantifiers too, but only calls the same interpretation function under quantifiers and also doesn't throw an error,
so at least for me this seems to be unrelated to my problem.
*)
(*
lemma " ∀x. ∃n. ((Suc n) * length (([(3::int) * x + f t * y - 9 + (- z)] # []) # xs) = length xs) ∧ m < 5*n - length (xs # [2,3,4,x*z + 8 - y]) ⟶ (∃p. ∀q. p ∧ q ⟶ r)"
apply (reify Irifm.simps Irnat_simps Irlist.simps Irint_simps)
oops
*)
end
Related
I have datatype stack_op which consists of several (~20) cases. I'm trying write function which skips some of that cases in list:
function (sequential) skip_expr :: "stack_op list ⇒ stack_op list" where
"skip_expr [] = []"
| "skip_expr ((stack_op.Unary _)#other) = (skip_expr other)"
| "skip_expr ((stack_op.Binary _)#other) = skip_expr (skip_expr other)"
| "skip_expr ((stack_op.Value _)#other) = other"
| "skip_expr other = other"
by pat_completeness auto termination by lexicographic_order
which seems to always terminate. But trying by lexicographic order generates such unresolved cases:
Calls:
c) stack_op.Binary uv_ # other ~> skip_expr other
Measures:
1) size_list size
2) length
Result matrix:
1 2
c: ? ?
(size_change also desn't work)
I've read https://isabelle.in.tum.de/dist/Isabelle2021/doc/functions.pdf, but it couldn't help. (Maybe there are more complex examples of tremination use?)
I tried to rewrite function adding another param:
function (sequential) skip_expr :: "stack_op list ⇒ nat ⇒ stack_op list" where
"skip_expr l 0 = l"
| "skip_expr [] _ = []"
| "skip_expr ((stack_op.Unary _)#other) depth = (skip_expr other (depth - 1))"
| "skip_expr ((stack_op.Binary _)#other) depth =
(let buff1 = (skip_expr other (depth - 1))
in (skip_expr buff1 (length buff1)))"
| "skip_expr ((stack_op.Value _)#other) _ = other"
| "skip_expr other _ = other"
by pat_completeness auto
termination by (relation "measure (λ(_,dep). dep)") auto
which generates unresolved subgoal:
1. ⋀other v. skip_expr_dom (other, v) ⟹ length (skip_expr other v) < Suc v
which I also don't how to proof.
Could anyone how such cases solved (As I can understand there is some problem with two-level recursive call on rigth side of stack_op.Binary case)? Or maybe there is another way to make such skip?
Thanks in advance
The lexicographic_order method simply tries to solve the arising goals with the simplifier, so if the simplifier gets stuck you end up with unresolved termination subgoals.
In this case, as you identified correctly, the problem is that you have a nested recursive call skip_expr (skip_expr other). This is always problematic because at this stage, the simplifier knows nothing about what skip_expr does to the input list. For all we know, it might just return the list unmodified, or even a longer list, and then it surely would not terminate.
Confronting the issue head on
The solution is to show something about length (skip_expr …) and make that information available to the simplifier. Because we have not yet shown termination of the function, we have to use the skip_expr.psimps rules and the partial induction rule skip_expr.pinduct, i.e. every statement we make about skip_expr xs always has as a precondition that skip_expr actually terminates on the input xs. For this, there is the predicate skip_expr_dom.
Putting it all together, it looks like this:
lemma length_skip_expr [termination_simp]:
"skip_expr_dom xs ⟹ length (skip_expr xs) ≤ length xs"
by (induction xs rule: skip_expr.pinduct) (auto simp: skip_expr.psimps)
termination skip_expr by lexicographic_order
Circumventing the issue
Sometimes it can also be easier to circumvent the issue entirely. In your case, you could e.g. define a more general function skip_exprs that skips not just one instruction but n instructions. This you can define without nested induction:
fun skip_exprs :: "nat ⇒ stack_op list ⇒ stack_op list" where
"skip_exprs 0 xs = xs"
| "skip_exprs (Suc n) [] = []"
| "skip_exprs (Suc n) (Unary _ # other) = skip_exprs (Suc n) other"
| "skip_exprs (Suc n) (Binary _ # other) = skip_exprs (Suc (Suc n)) other"
| "skip_exprs (Suc n) (Value _ # other) = skip_exprs n other"
| "skip_exprs (Suc n) xs = xs"
Equivalence to your skip_expr is then straightforward to prove:
lemma skip_exprs_conv_skip_expr: "skip_exprs n xs = (skip_expr ^^ n) xs"
proof -
have [simp]: "(skip_expr ^^ n) [] = []" for n
by (induction n) auto
have [simp]: "(skip_expr ^^ n) (Other # xs) = Other # xs" for xs n
by (induction n) auto
show ?thesis
by (induction n xs rule: skip_exprs.induct)
(auto simp del: funpow.simps simp: funpow_Suc_right)
qed
lemma skip_expr_Suc_0 [simp]: "skip_exprs (Suc 0) xs = skip_expr xs"
by (simp add: skip_exprs_conv_skip_expr)
In your case, I don't think it actually makes sense to do this because figuring out the termination is fairly easy, but it may be good to keep in mind.
I am trying to prove the following lemma (which is the meaning formula for the addition of two Binary numerals).
It goes like this :
lemma (in th2) addMeaningF_2: "∀m. m ≤ n ⟹ (m = (len x + len y) ⟹ (evalBinNum_1 (addBinNum x y) = plus (evalBinNum_1 x) (evalBinNum_1 y)))"
I am trying to perform strong induction. When I apply(induction n rule: less_induct) on the lemma, it throws an error.
exception THM 0 raised (line 755 of "drule.ML"):
infer_instantiate_types: type ?'a of variable ?a
cannot be unified with type 'b of term n
(⋀x. (⋀y. y < x ⟹ ?P y) ⟹ ?P x) ⟹ ?P ?a
Can anyone explain this?
Edit:
For more context
locale th2 = th1 +
fixes
plus :: "'a ⇒ 'a ⇒ 'a"
assumes
arith_1: "plus n zero = n"
and plus_suc: "plus n (suc m) = suc ( plus n m)"
len and evalBinNum_1 are both recursive functions
len gives us the length of a given binary numeral, while evalBinNum_1 evaluates binary numerals.
fun (in th2) evalBinNum_1 :: "BinNum ⇒ 'a"
where
"evalBinNum_1 Zero = zero"|
"evalBinNum_1 One = suc(zero)"|
"evalBinNum_1 (JoinZero x) = plus (evalBinNum_1 x) (evalBinNum_1 x)"|
"evalBinNum_1 (JoinOne x) = plus (plus (evalBinNum_1 x) (evalBinNum_1 x)) (suc zero)"
The problem is that Isabelle cannot infer the type of n (or the bound occurrence of m) when trying to use the induction rule less_induct. You might want to add a type annotation such as (n::nat) in your lemma. For the sake of generality, you might want to state that the type of n is an instance of the class wellorder, that is, (n::'a::wellorder). On another subject, I think there is a logical issue with your lemma statement: I guess you actually mean ∀m. m ≤ (n::nat) ⟶ ... ⟶ ... or, equivalently, ⋀m. m ≤ (n::nat) ⟹ ... ⟹ .... Finally, it would be good to know the context of your problem (e.g., there seems to be a locale th2 involved) for a more precise answer.
While doing some basic algebra, I frequently arrive at a subgoal of the following type (sometimes with a finite sum, sometimes with a finite product).
lemma foo:
fixes N :: nat
fixes a :: "nat ⇒ nat"
shows "(a 0) = (∑x = 0..N. (if x = 0 then 1 else 0) * (a x))"
This seems pretty obvious to me, but neither auto nor auto cong: sum.cong split: if_splits can handle this. What's more, sledgehammer also surrenders when called on this lemma. How can one efficiently work with finite sums and products containing if-then-else in general, and how to approach this case in particular?
My favourite way to do these things (because it is very general) is to use the rules sum.mono_neutral_left and sum.mono_neutral_cong_left and the corresponding right versions (and analogously for products). The rule sum.mono_neutral_right lets you drop arbitrarily many summands if they are all zero:
finite T ⟹ S ⊆ T ⟹ ∀i∈T - S. g i = 0
⟹ sum g T = sum g S
The cong rule additionally allows you to modify the summation function on the now smaller set:
finite T ⟹ S ⊆ T ⟹ ∀i∈T - S. g i = 0 ⟹ (⋀x. x ∈ S ⟹ g x = h x)
⟹ sum g T = sum h S
With those, it looks like this:
lemma foo:
fixes N :: nat and a :: "nat ⇒ nat"
shows "a 0 = (∑x = 0..N. (if x = 0 then 1 else 0) * a x)"
proof -
have "(∑x = 0..N. (if x = 0 then 1 else 0) * a x) = (∑x ∈ {0}. a x)"
by (intro sum.mono_neutral_cong_right) auto
also have "… = a 0"
by simp
finally show ?thesis ..
qed
Assuming the left-hand side could use an arbitrary value between 0 and N, what about adding a more general lemma
lemma bar:
fixes N :: nat
fixes a :: "nat ⇒ nat"
assumes
"M ≤ N"
shows "a M = (∑x = 0..N. (if x = M then 1 else 0) * (a x))"
using assms by (induction N) force+
and solving the original one with using bar by blast?
I need to generate a code calculating all values greater or equal to some value:
datatype ty = A | B | C
instantiation ty :: order
begin
fun less_ty where
"A < x = (x = C)"
| "B < x = (x = C)"
| "C < x = False"
definition "(x :: ty) ≤ y ≡ x = y ∨ x < y"
instance
apply intro_classes
apply (metis less_eq_ty_def less_ty.elims(2) ty.distinct(3) ty.distinct(5))
apply (simp add: less_eq_ty_def)
apply (metis less_eq_ty_def less_ty.elims(2))
using less_eq_ty_def less_ty.elims(2) by fastforce
end
instantiation ty :: enum
begin
definition [simp]: "enum_ty ≡ [A, B, C]"
definition [simp]: "enum_all_ty P ≡ P A ∧ P B ∧ P C"
definition [simp]: "enum_ex_ty P ≡ P A ∨ P B ∨ P C"
instance
apply intro_classes
apply auto
by (case_tac x, auto)+
end
lemma less_eq_code_predI [code_pred_intro]:
"Predicate_Compile.contains {z. x ≤ z} y ⟹ x ≤ y"
(* "Predicate_Compile.contains {z. z ≤ y} x ⟹ x ≤ y"*)
by (simp_all add: Predicate_Compile.contains_def)
code_pred [show_modes] less_eq
by (simp add: Predicate_Compile.containsI)
values "{x. A ≤ x}"
(* values "{x. x ≤ C}" *)
It works fine. But the theory looks over-complicated. Also I can't calculate values less or equal to some value. If one will uncoment the 2nd part of less_eq_code_predI lemma, then less_eq will have only one mode i => i => boolpos.
Is there a simpler and more generic approach?
Can less_eq support i => o => boolpos and o => i => boolpos at the same time?
Is it possible not to declare ty as an instance of enum class? I can declare a function returning a set of elements greater or equal to some element:
fun ge_values where
"ge_values A = {A, C}"
| "ge_values B = {B, C}"
| "ge_values C = {C}"
lemma ge_values_eq_less_eq_ty:
"{y. x ≤ y} = ge_values x"
by (cases x; auto simp add: dual_order.order_iff_strict)
This would allow me to remove enum and code_pred stuff. But in this case I will not be able to use this function in the definition of other predicates. How to replace (≤) by ge_values in the following definition?
inductive pred1 where
"x ≤ y ⟹ pred1 x y"
code_pred [show_modes] pred1 .
I need pred1 to have at least i => o => boolpos mode.
The predicate compiler has an option inductify that tries to convert functional definitions into inductive ones. It is somewhat experimental and does not work in every case, so use it with care. In the above example, the type classes make the whole situation a bit more complicated. Here's what I managed to get working:
case_of_simps less_ty_alt: less_ty.simps
definition less_ty' :: "ty ⇒ ty ⇒ bool" where "less_ty' = (<)"
declare less_ty_alt [folded less_ty'_def, code_pred_def]
code_pred [inductify, show_modes] "less_ty'" .
values "{x. less_ty' A x}"
The first line convertes the pattern-matching equations into one with a case expression on the right. It uses the command case_of_simps from HOL-Library.Simps_Case_Conv.
Unfortunately, the predicate compiler seems to have trouble with compiling type class operations. At least I could not get it to work.
So the second line introduces a new constant for (<) on ty.
The attribute code_pred_def tells the predicate compiler to use the given theorem (namely less_ty_alt with less_ty' instead of (<)) as the "defining equation".
code_pred with the inductify option looks at the equation for less_ty' declared by code_pred_def and derives an inductive definition out of that. inductify usually works well with case expressions, constructors and quantifiers. Everything beyond that is at your own risk.
Alternatively, you could also manually implement the enumeration similar to ge_values and register the connection between (<) and ge_values with the predicate compiler. See the setup block at the end of the Predicate_Compile theory in the distribution for an example with Predicate.contains. Note however that the predicate compiler works best with predicates and not with sets. So you'd have to write ge_values in the predicate monad Predicate.pred.
I am new to Isabelle and I am trying to define primitive recursive functions. I have tried out addition but I am having trouble with multiplication.
datatype nati = Zero | Suc nati
primrec add :: "nati ⇒ nati ⇒ nati" where
"add Zero n = n" |
"add (Suc m) n = Suc(add m n)"
primrec mult :: "nati ⇒ nati ⇒ nati" where
"mult Suc(Zero) n = n" |
"mult (Suc m) n = add((mult m n) m)"
I get the following error for the above code
Type unification failed: Clash of types "_ ⇒ _" and "nati"
Type error in application: operator not of function type
Operator: mult m n :: nati
Operand: m :: nati
Any ideas?
The problem is your mult function: It should look like this:
primrec mult :: "nati ⇒ nati ⇒ nati" where
"mult Zero n = Zero" |
"mult (Suc m) n = add (mult m n) m"
Function application in functional programming/Lambda calculus is the operation that binds strongest and it associates to the left: something like f x y means ‘f applied to x, and the result applied to y’ – or, equivalently due to Currying: the function f applied to the parameters x and y.
Therefore, something like mult Suc(Zero) n would be read as mult Suc Zero n, i.e. the function mult would have to be a function taking three parameters, namely Suc, Zero, and n. That gives you a type error. Similarly, add ((mult m n) m) does not work, since that is identical to add (mult m n m), which would mean that add is a function taking one parameter and mult is one taking three.
Lastly, if you fix all that, you will get another error saying you have a non-primitive pattern on the left-hand side of your mult function. You cannot pattern-match on something like Suc Zero since it is not a primitive pattern. You can do that if you use fun instead of primrec, but it is not what you want to do here: You want to instead handle the cases Zero and Suc (see my solution). In your definition, mult Zero n would even be undefined.