definition A_list ::"char list"
where "A_list = [CHR ''#'',CHR ''a'',CHR ''b'',CHR ''c'',CHR ''b'',CHR ''d'',CHR ''a'',CHR ''b'']"
definition B_list ::"char list"
where "B_list = [CHR ''#'',CHR ''b'',CHR ''d'',CHR ''c'',CHR ''a'',CHR ''b'',CHR ''a'']"
definition "OPT i j = Max {length xs | xs. subseq xs (take i A_list) ∧ subseq xs (take j B_list)}"
Value the OPT function to see why the error occurs?
value "OPT 7 6"
Wellsortedness error
(in code equation OPT ?i ?j ≡
Max (size_list_inst.size_list `
inf_set_inst.inf_set ((λxs. xs) ` {xs. list_emb equal_char_inst.equal_char xs (take ?i A_list)})
((λxs. xs) ` {xs. list_emb equal_char_inst.equal_char xs (take ?j B_list)})),
with dependency "Pure.dummy_pattern" -> "OPT"):
Type char list not of sort enum
No type arity list :: enum
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.
fun intersperse :: " 'a list ⇒ 'a ⇒ 'a list" where
"intersperse (x#y#xs) a = x#(a#(intersperse (y#xs) a))"|
"intersperse xs _ = xs"
lemma target:"map f (intersperse xs a) = intersperse (map f xs) (f a)"
The lemma seems very intuitive, but I can't get Isabelle to prove the lemma. I tried induction on xs, but the sledgehammer still can't find a proof. Then I tried adding auxiliary lemmas, all of them are easy to prove but don't help much proving target. I will list my attempts below though:
lemma intersp_1: "interspserse (xs#[y,x]) a = (intersperse (xs#[y]) a) # [a,x]"
...done
lemma intersp_2:"map f (intersperse (xs#[b,x]) a) = (map f (intersperse (xs#[b]) a)) # [(f a),(f x)]"
...done
lemma intersp_3: "map f (intersperse (x#y#xs) a) = (f x)#(f a)#(map f (intersperse (y#xs) a))"
...done
As a new learner of Isabelle I'm kind of stuck here. The only solution that I can currently think of is to come up with an appropriate lemma that provides enough hint to the solver. However I don't know how to "appropriately" dispart the induction step of target (after applying induction on xs) into a supplementary lemma. The induction step is
goal (1 subgoal):
1. ⋀aa xs.
map f (intersperse xs a) = intersperse (map f xs) (f a) ⟹
map f (intersperse (aa # xs) a) = intersperse (map f (aa # xs)) (f a)
Any help is appreciated!
Here's a proof:
lemma target: "map f (intersperse xs a) = intersperse (map f xs) (f a)"
proof (induct xs)
case Nil
then show ?case by simp
next
case (Cons x xs)
consider "xs = []" | "∃y ys. xs = y # ys" by (meson list.exhaust)
then show ?case using Cons by (cases; auto)
qed
The key here is that intersperse (x # []) a and intersperse (x # y # ys) a match different patterns, so by considering each case separately sledgehammer can easily find a proof.
Here is another option: Use the specialized induction rule for intersperse:
lemma target:"map f (intersperse xs a) = intersperse (map f xs) (f a)"
by (induct "(map f xs)" "f a" arbitrary: xs rule: intersperse.induct) auto
The rule intersperse.induct contains three cases:
x#y#xs
[]
[v]
These can then be solved by auto since they fit the simplification rules available for the function.
Since the parameters of intersperse in the lemma are not variables, it is necessary to give them explicitly to the induct method and use arbitrary to state what the variable parts are.
expect to use the subgoal to run the list which defined by let? aa = [1,2]
and run rev_app on this aa and show the value as [2,1]
theory Scratch2
imports Datatype
begin
datatype 'a list = Nil ("[]")
| Cons 'a "'a list" (infixr "#" 65)
(* This is the append function: *)
primrec app :: "'a list => 'a list => 'a list" (infixr "#" 65)
where
"[] # ys = ys" |
"(x # xs) # ys = x # (xs # ys)"
primrec rev :: "'a list => 'a list" where
"rev [] = []" |
"rev (x # xs) = (rev xs) # (x # [])"
primrec itrev :: "'a list => 'a list => 'a list" where
"itrev [] ys = ys" |
"itrev (x#xs) ys = itrev xs (x#ys)"
value "rev (True # False # [])"
lemma app_Nil2 [simp]: "xs # [] = xs"
apply(induct_tac xs)
apply(auto)
done
lemma app_assoc [simp]: "(xs # ys) # zs = xs # (ys # zs)"
apply(induct_tac xs)
apply(auto)
done
(1 st trial)
lemma rev_app [simp]: "rev(xs # ys) = (rev ys) # (rev xs)"
apply(induct_tac xs)
thus ?aa by rev_app
show "rev_app [1; 2]"
(2nd trial)
value "rev_app [1,2]"
(3 rd trial)
fun ff :: "'a list ⇒ 'a list"
where "rev(xs # ys) = (rev ys) # (rev xs)"
value "ff [1,2]"
thus ?aa by rev_app
show "rev_app [1; 2]"
end
Firstly, you need the syntax for list enumeration (I just picked it up in the src/HOL/List.thy file):
syntax
-- {* list Enumeration *}
"_list" :: "args => 'a list" ("[(_)]")
translations
"[x, xs]" == "x#[xs]"
"[x]" == "x#[]"
Then, is one of the following what you're searching for ?
Proposition 1:
lemma example1: "rev [a, b] = [b, a]"
by simp
This lemma is proved by applying the definition rules of rev that are used by the method simp to rewrite the left-hand term and prove that the two sides of the equality are equal. This is the solution I prefer because you can see the example is satisfied even without evaluating it with Isabelle.
Proposition 2:
value "rev [a, b]" (* return "[b, a]" *)
Here and in Proposition 3, we just uses the command value to evaluate rev.
Proposition 3:
value "rev [a, b] = [b, a]" (* returns "True" *)
This lemma is not used by the previous propositions:
lemma rev_app [simp]: "rev(xs # ys) = (rev ys) # (rev xs)"
apply (induct_tac xs)
by simp_all
Notes:
As a general principle, you shouldn't import the "Datatype" package alone, but import "Main" instead.
In your 1st attempt you're mixing the "apply" (apply ...) and the "structured proof" (thus ...) styles
"thus ?aa" makes no sense if "?aa" is "[1,2]" as the argument of "thus" should be a subgoal, ie. a proposition with a boolean value.
To evaluate, the command "value" uses ML execution or if this fails, normalisation by evaluation.
In example1, you can use a custom proof and thus lemmas (for example: by (simp add:rev_app)
I have a function that doubles the elements of a list in the form
double [x1, x2, ...] = [x1, x1, x2, x2, ...]
namely
fun double :: " 'a list ⇒ 'a list"
where
"double [] = []" |
"double (x#xs) = x # x # double xs"
and a function that reverses the elements of a list with the help of another function snoc that adds an element to the right side of a list:
fun snoc :: "'a list ⇒ 'a ⇒ 'a list"
where
"snoc [] x = [x]" |
"snoc (y # ys) x = y # (snoc ys x)"
fun reverse :: "'a list ⇒ 'a list"
where
"reverse [] = []" |
"reverse (x # xs) = snoc (reverse xs) x"
Now I want to prove that
lemma rev_double: "rev (double xs) = double (rev xs)"
is true.
I tried to apply induction on xs
lemma rev_double: "rev (double xs) = double (rev xs)"
by (induction xs)
and I wrote an auxiliary lemma double_snoc that ensures that doubling a list is the same as doubling its first element and the rest of the list (which uses the function snocleft which inserts an element at the left end of a list)
fun snocleft::"'a list ⇒ 'a ⇒ 'a list "
where
"snocleft [] x = [x]" |
"snocleft (y # ys) x = x # (y # ys)"
lemma double_snoc: "double (snocleft xs y) = y # y # double xs"
by (induction xs) auto
I still haven't made any progress in proving the lemma. Do you have some solutions or hints on how to set up the prove?
You define your function as reverse, but in all of your lemmas, you use rev, referring to the pre-defined list reversal function rev.
What you mean is probably this:
lemma reverse_double: "reverse (double xs) = double (reverse xs)"
If you attempt to prove this by induction (with apply (induction xs)), you will get stuck in the induction case with the following goal:
snoc (snoc (double (reverse xs)) a) a =
double (snoc (reverse xs) a)
This should be intuitively obvious: if you first snoc and then double, it is the same as first doubling and then snoc-ing twice. So let's prove this as an auxiliary lemma:
lemma double_snoc: "double (snoc xs x) = snoc (snoc (double xs) x) x"
by (induction xs) auto
Now the proof of reverse_double goes through automatically:
lemma reverse_double: "reverse (double xs) = double (reverse xs)"
by (induction xs) (auto simp: double_snoc)