Is it possible to make the following example work?
inductive elems where
"x |∈| xs ⟹
elems xs x"
code_pred [show_modes] elems .
values "{x. elems {|1::nat,2,3|} x}"
The predicate compiler by default does not know anything about finite sets and the membership operator |∈|. However, if you add the following snippet, then it works.
lemma fmember_code_predI [code_pred_intro]:
"x |∈| xs" if "Predicate_Compile.contains (fset xs) x"
using that by(simp add: Predicate_Compile.contains_def fmember.rep_eq)
code_pred fmember
by(simp add: Predicate_Compile.contains_def fmember.rep_eq)
Here's why this works: The constant Predicate_Compile.contains implements enumeration for ordinary sets and the predicate compiler knows about it. The lemma with the attribute code_pred_intro tells the predicate compiler to treat membership on fset as if it was defined as an inductive predicate with the lemma statement as introduction rule. At the code_pred command itself, you then have to prove the corresponding elimination rule. These two rules (introduction and elimination rule) are enough for the predicate compiler to do the mode analysis and compile the equations and prove them correct.
You don't even need to define your own predicate elems. Membership on fset works directly:
values "{x. x |∈| {|1::nat,2,3|}}"
Related
I sometimes find it hard to use Isabelle because I cannot have a "print command" like in normal programming.
For example, I want to see what ?thesis. The concrete semantics book says:
The unknown ?thesis is implicitly matched against any goal stated by lemma or show. Here is a typical example:
My silly sample FOL proof is:
lemma
assumes "(∃ x. ∀ y. x ≤ y)"
shows "(∀x. ∃ y. y ≤ x)"
proof (rule allI)
show ?thesis
but I get the error:
proof (state)
goal (1 subgoal):
1. ⋀x. ∃y. y ≤ x
Failed to refine any pending goal
Local statement fails to refine any pending goal
Failed attempt to solve goal by exported rule:
∀x. ∃y. y ≤ x
but I do know why.
I expected
?thesis === ⋀x. ∃y. y ≤ x
since my proof state is:
proof (state)
goal (1 subgoal):
1. ⋀x. ∃y. y ≤ x
Why can't I print ?thesis?
It's really annoying to have to write the statement I'm trying to proof if it's obvious. Perhaps it's meant to be explicit but in the examples in chapter 5 they get away with using ?thesis in:
lemma fixes a b :: int assumes "b dvd (a+b)" shows "b dvd a" proof −
have "∃k′. a = b∗k′" if asm: "a+b = b∗k" for k proof
show "a = b∗(k − 1)" using asm by(simp add: algebra_simps) qed
then show ?thesis using assms by(auto simp add: dvd_def ) qed
but whenever I try to use ?thesis I always fail.
Why is it?
Note that this does work:
lemma
assumes "(∃ x. ∀ y. x ≤ y)"
shows "(∀x. ∃ y. y ≤ x)"
proof (rule allI)
show "⋀x. ∃y. y ≤ x" proof -
but I thought ?thesis was there to avoid this.
Also, thm ?thesis didn't work either.
Another example is when I use:
let ?ys = take k1 xs
but I can't print ?ys value.
TODO:
why doesn't:
lemma "length(tl xs) = length xs - 1"
thm (cases xs)
show anything? (same if your replaces cases with induction).
You can find ?theorem and others in the print context window:
As for why ?thesis doesn't work, by applying the introduction rule proof (rule allI) you are changing the goal, so it no longer matches ?thesis. The example in the book uses proof- which prevents Isabelle from applying any introduction rule.
It seems I asked a very similar question worth pointing to: What is the best way to search through general definitions, theorems, functions, etc for Isabelle?
But here is a list of thing's I've learned so far:
thm: seems to work for definition, lemmas and functions. For definition do name_def for a definition with name name. For functions do thm f.simps for all definitions in the function. For a single one do thm f.simps(1) for the first one. For lemmas do thm lemma_name or thm impI or HOL.mp etc.
term: for terms do term term_name e.g. in isar term ?thesis or term this
print_theorems: if you place this after a definition or a function it shows all the theorems defined for those! It's amazing.
print... I just noticed in jedit if you let the auto complete show you the rest for print it has a bunch of options! Probably useful!
Search engine for Isabelle: https://search.isabelle.in.tum.de/
You can use Query (TODO: improve this)
TODO: how to find good way to display stuff about tactics.
I plan to update this as I learn all the ways to debug in Isabelle.
I define a very simple function replace which replaces 1 with 0 while preserving other input values. I want to prove that the output of the function cannot be 1. How to achieve this?
Here's the code.
theory Question
imports Main
begin
fun replace :: "nat ⇒ nat" where
"replace (Suc 0) = 0" |
"replace x = x"
theorem no1: "replace x ≠ (Suc 0)"
sorry
end
Thanks!
There exist several approaches for proving the statement that you are trying to prove.
You can make an attempt to use sledgehammer to find the proof automatically, e.g.
theorem no1: "replace x ≠ (Suc 0)"
by sledgehammer
(*using replace.elims by blast*)
Once the proof is found, you can delete the explicit invocation of the command sledgehammer.
Perhaps, a slightly better way to state the proof found by the sledgehammer would be
theorem no1': "replace x ≠ (Suc 0)"
by (auto elim: replace.elims)
You can also try to provide a more specialized proof. For example,
theorem no1: "replace x ≠ (Suc 0)"
by (cases x rule: replace.cases) simp_all
This proof looks at the different cases the value of x can have and then uses simplifier (in conjunction with the simp rules provided by the command fun during the definition of your function) to finish the proof. You can see all theorems that are generated by the command fun by typing print_theorems immediately after the specification of replace, e.g.
fun replace :: "nat ⇒ nat" where
"replace (Suc 0) = 0" |
"replace x = x"
print_theorems
Of course, there are other ways to prove the result that you are trying to prove. One good way to improve your ability to find such proofs is by reading the documentation and tutorials on Isabelle. My own starting point for learning Isabelle was the book "Concrete Semantics" by Tobias Nipkow and Gerwin Klein.
Consider the following property:
lemma "finite {t. (c,s) ⇒ t}"
Which refers to the following big step semantics:
inductive gbig_step :: "com × state ⇒ state ⇒ bool" (infix "⇒" 55)
where
Skip: "(SKIP, s) ⇒ s"
| Assign: "(x ::= a, s) ⇒ s(x := aval a s)"
| Seq: "⟦(c1, s1) ⇒ s2; (c2, s2) ⇒ s3⟧ ⟹ (c1;;c2, s1) ⇒ s3"
| IfBlock: "⟦(b,c) ∈ set gcs; bval b s; (c,s) ⇒ s'⟧ ⟹ (IF gcs FI, s) ⇒ s'"
| DoTrue: "⟦(b,c) ∈ set gcs; bval b s1; (c,s1) ⇒ s2;(DO gcs OD,s2) ⇒ s3⟧
⟹ (DO gcs OD, s1) ⇒ s3"
| DoFalse: "⟦(∀ (b,c) ∈ set gcs. ¬ bval b s)⟧ ⟹ (DO gcs OD, s) ⇒ s"
To me it is obvious that the property holds by induction on the big step relation. However, I can not get it out of the set, so I cannot effectively induct on it.
How could I do this?
Finiteness is nothing that you could prove directly with the induction rule of an inductive predicate. The problem is that looking at an individual run (as does the induction rule) does not say anything about the branching behaviour, which must also be finite for the statement to hold.
I see two approaches to proving finiteness:
Model the derivation tree explicitly as a datatype in Isabelle/HOL and prove that it adequately represent the derivation trees behind inductive. Then prove that the tree has finitely many leaves (by induction on the tree). If you design the datatype such that the states in the leaves are a type parameter, then the corresponding set function generated by the datatype package is what you want to prove to be finite. (Note that you cannot prove finiteness by the induction rule of the set function, because that would again be just a single run.)
Look at the internal construction of the inductive definition. It is defined as the least fixpoint of a functional. You can get access to these internals by putting the inductive definition into a context in which [[inductive_internals]] is declared. Then you can prove that the functional preserves finiteness in a single step and then lift that through the induction.
The proof argument in both approaches is similar. The explicit datatype in #1 simply reifies the fixpoint argument of #2. So you can think of #1 as a deep embedding of #2. Of course, you can also re-derive the internal construction (in a more suitable format) just from the introduction and induction theorems and then follow approach #2.
I would try to do precisely this as your semantics is small. For a large real-world semantics, it might make sense to spend the effort to automate step #2 in ML.
I'm attempting to formalize a series of proofs about topology from a book [1] in Isabelle.
I want to encode the idea that a topological space (X,T) consists of a set X of "points" (elements of some arbitrary type 'a), and a set of subsets of X, called T, such that:
A1. if an element p is in X, then there exists at least one set N in T that also contains p.
A2. if sets U and V are in T, and if p∈(U∩V), then there must exist at a set N in T where N⊆(U∩V) and x∈N. (If two sets intersect, then there must be a neighborhood that covers the intersection.).
Currently I have the following definition:
class topspace =
fixes X :: "'a set"
fixes T :: "('a set) set"
assumes A1: "p∈X ≡ ∃N∈T. p∈N"
assumes A2: "U∈T ∧ V∈T ∧ x∈(U∩V) ⟹ ∃N∈T. x∈N ∧ N⊆(U∩V)"
begin
(* ... *)
end
So far, so good. I'm able to add various definitions and prove various lemmas and theorems about hypothetical topspace instances.
But how do I actually create one? Unless I'm misinterpreting things, the examples I've seen so far for the instance and instantiate keywords all seem to be been about declaring that one particular abstract class (or type or locale) is an instance of another.
How do I tell Isabelle that a particular pair of sets (e.g. X={1::int, 2, 3}, T={X,{}}) form a topspace?
Likewise, how can I use my definition to prove that X={1::int, 2, 3}, T={} does not fit the requirements?
Finally, once I show that a particular concrete object X meets the definition of a topspace, how do I tell Isabelle to now make use of all the definitions and theorems I've proven about topspace when proving things about X?
BTW, I'm using class because I don't know any better. If it's not the right tool for the job, I'm happy to do something else.
[1]: A Bridge to Advanced Mathematics by Dennis Sentilles
I've made some progress here: a class is a special type of locale, but it isn't necessary for this sort of usage, and using the locale keyword directly simplifies the situation a bit. Every locale has an associated theorem that you can use to instantiate it:
locale topspace =
fixes X :: "'a set"
fixes T :: "('a set) set"
assumes A1 [simp]: "x∈X ≡ ∃N∈T. x∈N"
assumes A2 [simp]: "U∈T ∧ V∈T ∧ x∈(U∩V) ⟹ ∃N∈T. x∈N ∧ N⊆(U∩V)"
theorem
assumes "X⇩A={1,2,3::int}" and "T⇩A={{}, {1,2,3::int}}"
shows "topspace X⇩A T⇩A"
proof
show "⋀U V x. U∈T⇩A ∧ V∈T⇩A ∧ x∈U∩V ⟹ ∃N∈T⇩A. x∈N ∧ N⊆U∩V"
and "⋀x. x∈X⇩A ≡ ∃N∈T⇩A. x∈N" using assms by auto
qed
If we want to use definition for declarations, the proof goal becomes a bit more complex, and we need to use the unfolding keyword. (The locales.pdf that comes with isabelle covers this, but I'm not sure I'm not yet able to explain it in my own words). Anyway, this works:
experiment
begin
definition X⇩B where "X⇩B={1,2,3::int}"
definition T⇩B where "T⇩B={{}, {1,2,3::int}}"
lemma istop0: "topspace X⇩B T⇩B" proof
show "⋀U V x. U∈T⇩B ∧ V∈T⇩B ∧ x∈U∩V ⟹ ∃N∈T⇩B. x∈N ∧ N⊆U∩V"
and "⋀x. x∈X⇩B ≡ ∃N∈T⇩B. x∈N" unfolding X⇩B_def T⇩B_def by auto
qed
end
I believe it's also possible, and possibly preferable, to do all this work inside of a sub-locale, but I haven't quite worked out the syntax for this.
Although locales are implemented in the calculus itself and hence their predicates can be used in any regular proposition, this is usually not recommended. Instead, you should instantiate locales using e.g. interpretation, as in the following example.
locale topspace =
fixes X :: "'a set"
fixes T :: "('a set) set"
assumes A1 [simp]: "x∈X ⟷ (∃N∈T. x∈N)"
assumes A2 [simp]: "U∈T ∧ V∈T ∧ x∈(U∩V) ⟹ ∃N∈T. x∈N ∧ N⊆(U∩V)"
context
fixes X⇩A T⇩A
assumes X⇩A_eq: "X⇩A = {1, 2, 3 :: int}"
and T⇩A_eq: "T⇩A = {{}, {1, 2, 3 :: int}}"
begin
interpretation example: topspace X⇩A T⇩A
by standard (auto simp add: X⇩A_eq T⇩A_eq)
lemmas facts = example.A1 example.A2
end
thm facts
Whether this pattern really fits for your needs depends on your application; if you just want to have a predicate, it is better to define it directly without using locale at all.
Note: there is really need to the Pure equality »≡«; prefer HOL equality »=«, or its syntactic variant »⟷«.
I would like to reason about functions that choose one element from a finite set.
I tried to define a predicate that tells me whether some given function is such a “chooser” function:
definition chooser :: "('a set ⇒ 'a) ⇒ bool"
where "chooser f ⟷ (∀ A . finite A ⟶ f A ∈ A)"
Actually those finite sets from which I'd like to choose elements are of a concrete type, but putting a concrete type in 'a's place causes the same trouble.
I have also tried to omit finite A, but the sets I'm dealing with are finite, and I don't even want to think about the axiom of choice here.
Now this definition seems to be inconsistent:
lemma assumes "chooser f" shows "False" using assms chooser_def by force
How can I define chooser in a reasonable way? I would like to use it as follows:
assume "finite A"
moreover assume "chooser f"
moreover assume "choice = f A"
ultimately have "choice ∈ A" by ???
Most of the time it merely matters that a member of the set is chosen, not how it is chosen.
Background: I'd like to formalise tie-breakers in auctions (section 4 of this paper). Suppose there are two highest bids for the item being auctioned, we need to arbitrarily choose the one bidder who should win the auction.
Here is, BTW, a really minimal example (which is a bit harder to understand):
lemma "(∀ A . finite A ⟶ f A ∈ A) ⟹ False" by force
I merely provide the details based on Brian's comment that a choice function is defined only for a collection of non-empty sets.
From the Wikipedia entry on Choice_function:
A choice function (selector, selection) is a mathematical function f that is defined on some collection X of nonempty sets and assigns to each set S in that collection some element f(S) of S.
By now, you probably already have what you need from Brian's coment, but I do this anyway. The definition of chooser only needs the requirement that the set isn't empty:
definition chooser :: "('a set => 'a) => bool" where
"chooser f <-> (!A. A ~= {} --> f A ∈ A)"
theorem "(finite A & A ~= {} & chooser f) ==> (f A ∈ A)"
by(metis chooser_def)
theorem "(A ~= {} & chooser f) ==> (f A ∈ A)"
by(metis chooser_def)
You said that you don't want to use the Axiom of Choice, but a standard choice function demonstrates a good template to follow, not that you need it.
definition choice :: "'a set => 'a" where
"choice T = (SOME x. x ∈ T)"
theorem "T ~= {} ==> choice T ∈ T"
by(unfold choice_def, metis ex_in_conv someI
--GC