I have the following proof state:
1. ⋀i is s stk stack.
(⋀stack.
length (exec is s stack) = n' ⟹
length stack = n ⟹ ok n is n') ⟹
length (exec (i # is) s stack) = n' ⟹
length stack = n ⟹ ok n (i # is) n'
How do I perform a case split on i? Where i is of type:
datatype instr = LOADI val | LOAD vname | ADD
I'm doing this for exc 4.7 of concrete semantics so this should be possible to do with tactics.
If anything you should use cases i rule: instr.cases, but that will not work here because i is not a fixed variable but a bound variable. Also, the rule: instr.cases is not really needed because Isabelle will use that rule by default anyway.
Doing a case distinction on a bound variable without fixing it first is kind of discouraged; that said, it can be done by doing apply (case_tac i) instead of apply (cases i). But as I said, this is not the nice way to do it.
A more proper way to do it is to explicitly fix i using e.g. the subgoal command:
subgoal for i is s stk stack
apply (cases i)
An even better way would probably be to use a structured Isar proof instead.
However, I don't think the subgoal command or Isar proofs are something that you know about at this stage of the Concrete Semantics book, so my guess would be that there is a nicer way to do the proof where you don't have to do any manual case splitting.
Most probably you are doing an induction on the list of instructions; it would probably be better to do an induction on the predicate ok instead. But then again: Where is that predicate ok? I don't see it in your assumptions. It's hard to say what's going on there without knowing how you defined ok and what lemma you are trying to prove exactly and what tactics you applied already.
I am trying to prove the following basic theorem about the existence of the inverse function of a bijective function (to learn theorem-proving with Isabelle/HOL):
For any set S and its identity map 1_S, α:S→T is bijective iff there
exists a map β: T→S such that βα=1_S and αβ=1_S.
Below is what I have so far after some attempts to define relevant things including functions and their inverses. But I am pretty stuck and couldn't make much progress due to my lack of understanding of Isabelle and/or Isar.
theory Test
imports Main
"HOL.Relation"
begin
lemma bij_iff_ex_identity : "bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃ g. g∘f = restrict id B ∧ f∘g = restrict id A)"
unfolding bij_betw_def inj_on_def restrict_def iffI
proof
let ?g = "restrict (λ y. (if f x = y then x else undefined)) B"
assume "(∀x∈A. ∀y∈A. f x = f y ⟶ x = y)"
have "?g∘f = restrict id B"
proof
(* cannot prove this *)
end
In above, I try to give an explicit existential witness (i.e. the inverse function g of the original function f). I have several issues about the proof.
whether the concepts are defined right (functions, inverse functions etc.) in Isabelle terms.
how to expand the relevant definitions and then simplify them with function applications. I have followed some Isabelle (2021) examples/tutorials about both the apply-style simp, and structured style Isar proof but couldn't use the Isar proof fluently. Once I started the proof command, I don't know how to simp or move any further.
Isar has the new way of assumes ... shows ... for stating the theorem. Is there similar support for proving iff's (⟷) like the example above? Without it, there is no access to assms etc., and is it necessary to assume everything except the conclusion during the proof.
Can someone help explain how the above existential proof about inverse function can be accomplished?
lemma bij_iff_ex_identity : "bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃ g. g∘f = restrict id B ∧ f∘g = restrict id A)"
I think this is not exactly what you want an I am doubtful that it is true. g∘f = restrict id B does not mean that g∘f and id are equal on B. It means that the total function g∘f (and there are only total functions in HOL) equals the total function restrict id B. The latter returns id x on x∈B and undefined otherwise. So to make this equality true, g needs to output undefined whenever the input of f is not in B. But how would g know that!
If you want to use restrict, you could write restrict (g∘f) B = restrict id B. But personally, I would rather go for the simpler (∀x∈B. (g∘f) x = x).
So the corrected theorem would be:
lemma bij_iff_ex_identity : "bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃ g. (∀x∈A. (g∘f) x = x) ∧ (∀y∈B. (f∘g) y = y))"
(Which is still wrong, by the way, as quickcheck tells me in Isabelle/jEdit, see the output window. If A has one element and B is empty, f cannot be a bijection. So the theorem you are attempting is actually mathematically not true. I will not attempt to fix it, but just answer the remaining lines.
unfolding bij_betw_def inj_on_def restrict_def iffI
The iffI here has no effect. Unfolding can only apply theorems of the form A = B (unconditional rewriting rules). iffI is not of that form. (Use thm iffI to see.)
proof
Personally, I don't use the bare form proof but always proof - or proof (some method). Because proof just applies some default method (in this case, equivalent to (rule iffI), so I think it's better to make it explicit. proof - just starts the proof without applying an extra method.
let ?g = "restrict (λ y. (if f x = y then x else undefined)) B"
You have an unbound variable x here. (Note the background color in the IDE.) That is most likely not what you want. Formally, it is allowed, but x will be treated as if it was some arbitrary constant.
Generally, I don't think there is any way to define g in a simple way (i.e., only with quantifiers and function applications and if-then-else). I think the only way to define an inverse (even if you know it exists), is to use the THE operator, because you need to say something like g y is "the" x such that f x = y. (And then later in the proof you will run into a proof obligation that it indeed exists and that it is unique.) See the definition of inv_into in Hilbert_Choice.thy (except it uses SOME not THE). Maybe for starters, try to do the proof just using the existing inv_into constant.
assume "(∀x∈A. ∀y∈A. f x = f y ⟶ x = y)"
All assume commands must have assumptions exactly as the are in the proof goal. You can test whether you wrote it right by just temporarily writing the command show A for A (that's an unprovable goal that would, however, finish the proof, so it tricks Isabelle into checking if it would). If this command does not give an error, you got the assumes right. In your cases, you didn't, it should be (∀x∈A. ∀y∈A. f x = f y ⟶ x = y) ∧ f ' A = B. (' is the backtick symbol here. Markup doesn't let me write it.)
My recommendation: Try the proof with bij instead of bij_betw first. (One direction is in BNF_Fixpoint_Base.o_bij if you want to cheat.)
Once done, you can try to generalize.
I agree with the insightful remarks provided by Dominique Unruh. However, I would like to mention that a theorem that captures the idea underlying the theorem that you are trying to prove already exists in the source code of the main library of Isabelle/HOL. In fact, it exists in at least two different formats: let me name them the traditional Isabelle/HOL format and the canonical FuncSet format. For the former one, see the theorem bij_betw_iff_bijections:
"bij_betw f A B ⟷ (∃g. (∀x ∈ A. f x ∈ B ∧ g(f x) = x) ∧ (∀y ∈ B. g y ∈ A ∧ f(g y) = y))"
The situation is a little bit more complicated with FuncSet. There does not seem to exist a single theorem that captures the idea. However, together, the theorems bij_betwI, bij_betw_imp_funcset and inv_into_funcset are nearly equivalent to the theorem that you are trying to state. Let me provide a sketch of how one could express this theorem in a manner that would be considered reasonably canonical in the FuncSet sense (try to prove it yourself):
lemma bij_betw_iff:
shows "bij_betw f A B ⟷
(
∃g.
(∀x. x∈A ⟶ g (f x) = x) ∧
(∀y. y∈B ⟶ f (g y) = y) ∧
f ∈ A → B ∧
g ∈ B → A
)"
sorry
I would also like to repeat the advice given by Dominique Unruh and provide several side remarks:
My recommendation: Try the proof with bij instead of bij_betw first.
Indeed, this is a very good idea. In general, by trying to restrict the problem to explicitly defined sets A and B, instead of working directly with types, you touched upon a topic that is known as relativization in logic. For a mild layman's introduction see, for example, https://leanprover.github.io/logic_and_proof/first_order_logic.html [1], for a slightly more thorough introduction in the context of set theory see [2, chapter 12]. As you have probably noticed by now, it is not that easy to relativize theorems in Isabelle/HOL and requires additional proof effort.
However, there exists an extension of Isabelle/HOL that allows for the automation of the process of the relativization of theorems. For more information about this extension see the article From Types to Sets by Local Type Definition in Higher-Order Logic by Ondřej Kunčar and Andrei Popescu [3]. There also exists a large scale application example of the framework [4]. Independently, I am working on making this extension more user-friendly and very slowly approaching the final stages in my efforts: see https://gitlab.com/user9716869/tts_extension. Thus, in principle, if you know how to use Types-To-Sets and you accept its axioms, then it is sufficient to prove the theorem with bij, e.g.,
"bij f ⟷ (∃g. (∀x. g (f x) = x) ∧ (∀y. f (g y) = y))",
Then, the theorems like
bij_betw_iff_bijections and bij_betw_iff can be synthesized automatically for free upon a click of a button (almost...).
Finally, for completeness, let me offer my own advice with regard to your queries (although, as I mentioned, I agree with everything stated by Dominique Unruh)
how to expand the relevant definitions and then simplify them with
function applications. I have followed some Isabelle (2021)
examples/tutorials about both the apply-style simp, and structured
style Isar proof but couldn't use the Isar proof fluently. Once I
started the proof command, I don't know how to simp or move any
further.
I believe that the best way to learn what you are trying to learn is by following through the exercises in the book Concrete Semantics by Tobias Nipkow and Gerwin Klein [5]. Additionally, I would also look through A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic by Tobias Nipkow et al [6](it is slightly outdated, but I found it to be useful specifically for learning apply-style scripting/direct rule application). By the way, I have mostly self-taught myself Isabelle from these books without any prior experience in formal methods.
Isar has the new way of assumes ... shows ... for stating the theorem.
Is there similar support for proving iff's (⟷) like the example above?
Without it, there is no access to assms etc., and is it necessary to
assume everything except the conclusion during the proof.
I will make the advice given by Dominique Unruh more explicit: use rule iffI or intro iffI for this.
Edit. When you use rule iffI (or similar) to start your structured Isar proof, you need to state your assumptions explicitly for every subgoal (using the assume ... show ... paradigm). However, there is a tool that can generate such boilerplate Isar code automatically. It is called Sketch-and-Explore and you can find it in the directory HOL/ex of the main library of Isabelle/HOL. In this case, all you need to do is to type sketch(rule iffI) and the assume/show paradigm will be generated automatically for every subgoal.
References
Avigad J, Lewis RY, and van Doorn F. Logic and Proof.
Jech T. Set theory. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2006. (Pure and applied mathematics, a series of monographs and textbooks).
Kunčar O, Popescu A. From Types to Sets by Local Type Definition in Higher-Order Logic. Journal of Automated Reasoning. 2019;62(2):237–60.
Immler F, Zhan B. Smooth Manifolds and Types to Sets for Linear Algebra in Isabelle/HOL. In: 8th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs. New York: ACM; 2019. p. 65–77. (CPP 2019).
Nipkow T, Klein G. Concrete Semantics with Isabelle/HOL. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2017. (http://concrete-semantics.org/)
Nipkow T, Paulson LC, Wenzel M. A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2017.
I'm using Isabelle/HOL, trying to prove a statement Q. On the way to proving Q, I have proven the existence of a natural number that satisfies P::"nat=>bool". How can I create an instance x::nat that satisfies P, so that I can reference it in subsequent lemmas?
Inside any given lemma, I can do it using the obtains command. I want to reference the same witness instance in a number of different lemmas, however, so I need a way to do it outside of any lemma. I tried to use fix/assume inside a new locale, as shown below:
locale outerlocale
fixes a b c ...
begin
definition Q::bool where ...
lemma existence: "EX x. P x"
proof -
...
qed
locale innerlocale = outerlocale +
fixes x::nat
assumes "P x"
begin
(*lots of lemmas that reference x*)
lemma innerlemma0
...
lemma innerlemma7
proof -
...
qed
lemma finalinnerlemma: "Q"
proof -
...
...
qed
end (*innerlocale*)
lemma outerlemma: "Q"
proof -
(*I don't know what goes here*)
qed
end (*outerlocale)
Unfortunately this just kicks the can down the road. I need a way to use the existence lemma to extract the final inner lemma into the outer locale. If I try to interpret the inner locale, I'm once again up against the problem of supplying a witness. I can't interpret locales inside lemmas (unless I'm misunderstanding the error I get), and I can't use obtain outside of lemmas, so I'm stuck.
So it looks I need to figure out either
how to specify a witness instance outside a lemma or
how to extract a lemma from a locale by proving that locale's assumptions
Or is there a better way to do what I'm trying to do? Thanks!
You can just use SOME x. P x, e.g., in a definition:
definition my_witness :: nat where
"my_witness = (SOME x. P x)"
and then use thm someI_ex to show P my_witness.
I am sorry for asking so many Isabelle questions lately. Right now I have a type problem.
I want to use a type_synonym introduced in a AFP-theory.
type_synonym my_fun = "nat ⇒ real"
I have a locale in my own theory where:
fixes n :: nat
and f :: "my_fun"
and A :: "nat set"
defines A: "A ≡ {0..n}"
However, in my use case the output of the function f is always a natural number in the set {0..n}. I want to impose this as a condition (or is there a better way to do it?). The only way I found was to:
assumes "∀v. ∃ i. f v = i ∧ i ∈ A"
since
assumes "∀v. f v ∈ A"
does not work.
If I let Isabelle show me the involved types it seems alright to me:
∀v::nat. ∃i::nat. (f::nat ⇒ real) v = real i ∧ i ∈ (A::nat set)
But of course now I cannot type something like this:
have "f ` {0..10} ⊆ A"
But I have to prove this. I understand where this problem comes from. However, I do not know how to proceed in a case like this. What is the normal way to deal with it? I would like to use my_fun as it has the same meaning as in my theory.
Thank you (again).
If you look closely at ∀v::nat. ∃i::nat. (f::nat ⇒ real) v = real i ∧ i ∈ (A::nat set), you will be able to see the mechanism that was used for making the implicit type conversion between nat and real: it is the abbreviation real (this invokes of_nat defined for semiring_1 in Nat.thy) that appears in the statement of the assumption in the context of the locale.
Of course, you can use the same mechanism explicitly. For example, you can define A::real set as A ≡ image real {0..n} instead of A::nat set as A ≡ {0..n}. Then you can use range f ⊆ A instead of assumes "∀v. ∃ i. f v = i ∧ i ∈ A”. However, I doubt that there is a universally accepted correct way to do it: it depends on what exactly you are trying to achieve. Nonetheless, for the sake of the argument, your locale could look like this:
type_synonym my_fun = "nat ⇒ real"
locale myloc_basis =
fixes n :: nat
abbreviation (in myloc_basis) A where "A ≡ image real {0..n}"
locale myloc = myloc_basis +
fixes f :: "my_fun"
assumes range: "range f ⊆ A"
lemma (in myloc) "f ` {0..10} ⊆ A"
using range by auto
I want to impose this as a condition (or is there a better way to do
it?).
The answer depends on what is known about f. If only a condition on the range of f is known, as the statement of your question seems to suggest, then, I guess, you can only state is as an assumption.
As a side note, to the best of my knowledge, defines is considered to be obsolete and it is best to avoid using it in the specifications of a locale: stackoverflow.com/questions/56497678.
How can I automatically use the values found by nitpick, instead of using rule exI's and manually typing in the witness values?
theorem "EX a b. a + b = 5 & a - b = (1 :: int)"
nitpick [falsify=false]
(* Nitpicking formula...
Nitpick found a model:
Skolem constants:
a = 3
b = 2
*)
apply (rule exI[where x="3"])
apply (rule exI[where x="2"])
apply (simp)
done
I don't think that functionality exists, since I'd say this is not a typical use case.
One could probably add something like this to the nitpick command with a relatively small amount of effort or create a new command to do it.