I'm very new at coq.(I'm reading now Poly section in Software Foundation)
In Basics section, they define ble_nat function that is x <= y, then I want to prove transitive law about this, like:
Notation "x =< y" := (ble_nat x y) (at level 50, left associativity) : nat_scope.
Theorem ble_trans: forall (n m o:nat),
n =< m = true -> m =< o = true -> n =< o = true.
Proof.
(* proof *)
But I could not prove this by using simpl, destruct, induction, rewrite or apply tactic.
I googled and found out there is already proved library of this, but I could not found out code.
How would I prove this ?
To prove forall (n m : nat), n =< m =true -> exists o, m =< o = true -> n =< o = true, it is enough to show o := S m satisfy existential quantifier.
Theorem bleS : forall (n m: nat), n =< m = true -> n =< S m = true.
Proof.
intros n.
induction n.
+ intros m H. reflexivity.
+ intros m H. destruct m.
- simpl in H. discriminate.
- simpl. simpl in H. apply IHn. exact H.
Qed.
Theorem ble_trans_ex: forall (n m :nat),
n =< m = true -> exists o, m =< o = true -> n =< o = true.
Proof.
intros n m H1.
apply ex_intro with (x := S m).
intros H2. apply bleS. exact H1.
Qed.
Related
I'm trying to prove group axioms for Z_3 type:
Require Import Coq.Arith.PeanoNat.
Record Z_3 : Type := Z3
{
n :> nat;
proof : (Nat.ltb n 3) = true
}.
Proposition lt_0_3 : (0 <? 3) = true.
Proof.
simpl. reflexivity.
Qed.
Definition z3_0 : Z_3 := (Z3 0 lt_0_3).
Proposition lt_1_3 : (1 <? 3) = true.
Proof.
reflexivity.
Qed.
Definition z3_1 : Z_3 := (Z3 1 lt_1_3).
Proposition lt_2_3 : (2 <? 3) = true.
Proof.
reflexivity.
Qed.
Definition z3_2 : Z_3 := (Z3 2 lt_2_3).
Proposition three_ne_0 : 3 <> 0.
Proof.
discriminate.
Qed.
Lemma mod_upper_bound_bool : forall (a b : nat), (not (eq b O)) -> (Nat.ltb (a mod b) b) = true.
Proof.
intros a b H. apply (Nat.mod_upper_bound a b) in H. case Nat.ltb_spec0.
- reflexivity.
- intros Hcontr. contradiction.
Qed.
Definition Z3_op (x y: Z_3) : Z_3 :=
let a := (x + y) mod 3 in
Z3 a (mod_upper_bound_bool _ 3 three_ne_0).
Lemma Z3_eq n m p q : n = m -> Z3 n p = Z3 m q.
Proof.
intros H. revert p q. rewrite H. clear H. intros. apply f_equal.
We are almost done:
1 subgoal (ID 41)
n, m : nat
p, q : (m <? 3) = true
============================
p = q
What theorem should I use to prove that p = q?
Update 1
Theorem bool_dec :
(forall x y: bool, {x = y} + {x <> y}).
Proof.
intros x y. destruct x.
- destruct y.
+ left. reflexivity.
+ right. intro. discriminate H.
- destruct y.
+ right. intro. discriminate H.
+ left. reflexivity.
Qed.
Lemma Z3_eq n m p q : n = m -> Z3 n p = Z3 m q.
Proof.
intros H. revert p q. rewrite H. clear H. intros. apply f_equal. apply UIP_dec. apply bool_dec.
Qed.
You are probably interested in knowing that every two proofs of a decidable equality are equal. This is explained and proved here: https://coq.inria.fr/library/Coq.Logic.Eqdep_dec.html
You are interested in particular in the lemma UIP_dec: https://coq.inria.fr/library/Coq.Logic.Eqdep_dec.html#UIP_dec
Theorem UIP_dec :
forall (A:Type),
(forall x y:A, {x = y} + {x <> y}) ->
forall (x y:A) (p1 p2:x = y), p1 = p2.
You will have then to prove that equalities of booleans are decidable (i.e. that you can write a function which says whether two given booleans are equal or not) which you should also be able to find in the standard library but which should be easily provable by hand as well.
This is a different question but since you asked: bool_dec exists and even has that name!
The easy way to find it is to use the command
Search sumbool bool.
It will turn up several lemmata, including pretty early:
Bool.bool_dec: forall b1 b2 : bool, {b1 = b2} + {b1 <> b2}
Why did I search sumbool? sumbool is the type which is written above:
{ A } + { B } := sumbool A B
You can find it using the very nice Locate command:
Locate "{".
will turn up
"{ A } + { B }" := sumbool A B : type_scope (default interpretation)
(and other notations involving "{").
I am close to ending the proof for Z_3 left id. Here is what I have so far
Require Import Coq.Arith.PeanoNat.
Require Import Coq.Bool.Bool.
Require Import Coq.Logic.Eqdep_dec.
Record Z_3 : Type := Z3
{
n :> nat;
proof : (Nat.ltb n 3) = true
}.
Proposition lt_0_3 : (0 <? 3) = true.
Proof.
simpl. reflexivity.
Qed.
Definition z3_0 : Z_3 := (Z3 0 lt_0_3).
Proposition lt_1_3 : (1 <? 3) = true.
Proof.
reflexivity.
Qed.
Definition z3_1 : Z_3 := (Z3 1 lt_1_3).
Proposition lt_2_3 : (2 <? 3) = true.
Proof.
reflexivity.
Qed.
Definition z3_2 : Z_3 := (Z3 2 lt_2_3).
Proposition three_ne_0 : 3 <> 0.
Proof.
discriminate.
Qed.
Lemma mod_upper_bound_bool : forall (a b : nat), b <> O -> (a mod b <? b) = true.
Proof.
intros a b H. apply (Nat.mod_upper_bound a b) in H. case Nat.ltb_spec0.
- reflexivity.
- intros Hcontr. contradiction.
Qed.
Definition Z3_op (x y: Z_3) : Z_3 :=
let a := (x + y) mod 3 in
Z3 a (mod_upper_bound_bool _ 3 three_ne_0).
Lemma Z3_eq n m p q : n = m -> Z3 n p = Z3 m q.
Proof.
intros H. revert p q. rewrite H. clear H. intros. apply f_equal. apply UIP_dec. apply bool_dec.
Qed.
Proposition Z3_left_id' : forall x: Z_3, (Z3_op z3_0 x) = x.
Proof.
intro. unfold Z3_op. destruct x as [n proof]. apply Z3_eq.
Result:
1 subgoal (ID 46)
n : nat
proof : (n <? 3) = true
============================
(z3_0 + {| n := n; proof := proof |}) mod 3 = n
I found the following theorems that could be useful:
Nat.ltb_spec0
: forall x y : nat, reflect (x < y) (x <? y)
Nat.mod_small: forall a b : nat, a < b -> a mod b = a
Is it possible to get rid of profs in the goal, convert proof from bool to Prop, and then use Nat.mod_small?
Update
Proposition Z3_left_id' : forall x: Z_3, (Z3_op z3_0 x) = x.
Proof.
intro. unfold Z3_op. destruct x as [vx proof]. apply Z3_eq. unfold n, z3_0. rewrite plus_O_n. apply Nat.mod_small.
1 subgoal (ID 67)
vx : nat
proof : (vx <? 3) = true
============================
vx < 3
You need the coercion to execute. Unfortunately,
by naming the bound variable of your proof n and the projection from Z_3 to nat n, you painted yourself in a corner.
Here are four solutions:
1/ this one I mention just for the record: you can talk about the constant n that was defined in this file by using the file name as a module qualifier.
unfold user4035_oct_16.n.
user4035_oct_16 is the name of the current file, this is ugly.
2/ you could call a computation function that computes everything, however computation of modulo leaves unsightly terms in the goal, so you could decide to not compute that particular part.
cbn -[Nat.modulo].
I like this one, but it requires that you spend sometime learning how to use cbn.
3/ You can avoid the name clash by renaming variables in the goal.
rename n into m.
unfold n, Z3_0.
Not very nice either.
4/ Just go back in your script and replace destruct x as [n proof] with destruct x as [vx proof], then you can type:
unfold n, z3_0.
you will be able to use the lemmas you suggest.
Proof:
Proposition Z3_left_id : forall x: Z_3, (Z3_op z3_0 x) = x.
Proof.
intro. unfold Z3_op. destruct x as [vx proof]. apply Z3_eq. unfold n, z3_0. rewrite plus_O_n. apply Nat.mod_small. apply Nat.ltb_lt in proof. assumption.
Qed.
Why doesn't the last line of my proof shed a successor instead of adding one.
Note: i'm doing these excercises outside of a classroom setting and don't condone people using it to cheat on hw, I just don't know where else to ask it.
From the tactics chapter in Pierce.
Theorem plus_n_n_injective : forall n m,
n + n = m + m ->
n = m.
Proof.
intros n. induction n as [| n'].
intros.
simpl in H.
destruct m.
reflexivity.
discriminate.
intros.
rewrite <- plus_n_Sm in H.
destruct m.
discriminate.
rewrite <- plus_n_Sm in H.
apply S_injective in H.
simpl in H.
apply S_injective in H.
apply S_injective.
where these auxiliary lemmas are used
Theorem S_injective : forall (n m : nat),
S n = S m ->
n = m.
Proof.
intros n m H1.
assert (H2: n = pred (S n)). { reflexivity. }
rewrite H2. rewrite H1. reflexivity.
Qed.
Theorem plus_n_Sm : forall n m : nat,
S (n + m) = n + (S m).
Proof.
intros n m. induction n as [| n' IHn'].
simpl.
reflexivity.
simpl.
rewrite -> IHn'.
reflexivity.
Qed.
If you have a look at the statement of S_injective:
Theorem S_injective : forall (n m : nat),
S n = S m ->
n = m.
you will see it says that to prove n = m it is enough to prove S n = S m.
Before you apply it, you have to prove S n' = S m, and then you say you only need to prove S (S n') = S (S m). It's because apply in the goal is doing some backward thinking.
What you want instead is being able to say n = m -> S n = S m. You can prove the lemma by hand like you did, or you can use the f_equal tactic which works in general to prove f n = f m from n = m for any f (roughly).
I am working on the proof of the following theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m in IndProp.v of Software Foundations (Vol 1: Logical Foundations).
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m : ∀n m,
S n ≤ S m → n ≤ m.
Proof.
intros n m HS.
induction HS as [ | m' Hm' IHm'].
- (* le_n *) (* Failed Here *)
- (* le_S *) apply IHSm'.
Admitted.
where, the definition of le (i.e., ≤) is:
Inductive le : nat → nat → Prop :=
| le_n n : le n n
| le_S n m (H : le n m) : le n (S m).
Notation "m ≤ n" := (le m n).
Before induction HS, the context as well as the goal is as follows:
n, m : nat
HS : S n <= S m
______________________________________(1/1)
n <= m
At the point of the first bullet -, the context as well as the goal is:
n, m : nat
______________________________________(1/1)
n <= m
where we have to prove n <= m without any context, which is obviously impossible.
Why does it not generate S n = S m (and then n = m) for the le_n case in induction HS?
The main problem here -I think- is it is impossible to prove the Theorem using induction on HS as there is no way to say something about n with only hypothesis about S n because non of the constructors of le do not change the value of n. But anyway the reason that after first bullet - there is no assumption is because calling induction has the effect of replacing all occurrences of the property argument by the values that correspond to each constructor and it doesn't help in this case since the term that gets replaced S n is not mentioned anywhere. There are some tricks to avoid this. for example you can replace n with pred(S n) as follows.
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m : forall n m,
S n <= S m -> n <= m.
Proof.
intros n m HS.
assert(Hn: n=pred (S n)). reflexivity. rewrite Hn.
assert(Hm: m=pred (S m)). reflexivity. rewrite Hm.
induction HS.
- (* le_n *) apply le_n.
- (* le_S *) (* Stucks! *) Abort.
But as I mentioned above it is impossible to go further. Another way is to use inversion which is smarter but in some cases it may not help since induction hypothesis would be necessary. But it worth to know about it.
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m : forall n m,
S n <= S m -> n <= m.
Proof.
intros n m HS.
inversion HS.
- (* le_n *) apply le_n.
- (* le_S *) (* Stucks! *) Abort.
Best way to solve the problem is use of remember tactic as follows.
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m : forall n m,
S n <= S m -> n <= m.
Proof.
intros n m HS.
remember (S n) as Sn.
remember (S m) as Sm.
induction HS as [ n' | n' m' H IH].
- (* le_n *)
rewrite HeqSn in HeqSm. injection HeqSm as Heq.
rewrite <- Heq. apply le_n.
- (* le_S *) (* Stucks! *) Abort.
According to Software Foundations (Vol 1: Logical Foundations)
The tactic remember e as x causes Coq to (1) replace all occurrences
of the expression e by the variable x, and (2) add an equation x = e
to the context.
Anyway, although it is impossible to prove the fact using induction on HS -imo-, performing an induction on m will solve the case. (Note the use of inversion.)
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m : forall n m,
S n <= S m -> n <= m.
Proof.
intros n.
induction m as [|m' IHm'].
- intros H. inversion H as [Hn | n' contra Hn'].
+ apply le_n.
+ inversion contra.
- intros H. inversion H as [HnSm' | n' HSnSm' Heq].
+ apply le_n.
+ apply le_S. apply IHm'. apply HSnSm'.
Qed.
Just more examples of Kamyar's answer.
Well, let's take a look of le induction scheme :
Compute le_ind.
forall (n : nat) (P : nat -> Prop),
P n ->
(forall m : nat, n <= m -> P m -> P (S m)) ->
forall n0 : nat, n <= n0 -> P n0
P is some proposition that holds one natural number, which means in the case of le_n, our preposition n <= m will be reduced to forall n, n <= m. Indeed, it's the same lemma that we want to prove, however unprovable because there is no premise.
An easy to solve this is doing induction where le_ind doesn't do.
For example :
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m' : forall m n,
S n <= S m -> n <= m.
elim.
by intros; apply : Gt.gt_S_le .
intros; inversion H0.
by subst.
by subst; apply : le_Sn_le.
Qed.
Notice that we doing induction by m, and using inversion to generates the two possible construction of le ({x = y} + {x < y}). Optionally, you can use le decidability.
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m : forall n m,
S n <= S m -> n <= m.
intros.
generalize dependent n.
elim.
auto with arith.
intros.
have : n <= m.
by apply : H; apply : le_Sn_le.
move => H'.
destruct m.
auto with arith.
destruct (le_lt_eq_dec _ _ H').
assumption.
subst.
(* just prove that there is no S m <= m *)
Qed.
For the sake of your time, coq has the tactic dependent induction that easily solves your goal :
Theorem Sn_le_Sm__n_le_m'' : forall n m,
S n <= S m -> n <= m.
intros.
dependent induction H.
auto.
by apply : (le_Sn_le _ _ H).
Qed.
I'm new to inductive predicates in Coq. I have learned how to define simple inductive predicates such as "even" (as in adam.chlipala.net/cpdt/html/Predicates.html) or "last" (as in http://www.cse.chalmers.se/research/group/logic/TypesSS05/resources/coq/CoqArt/inductive-prop-chap/SRC/last.v).
Now I wanted to try something slightly more complicated: to define addition as an inductive predicate, but I got stuck. I did the following:
Inductive N : Type :=
| z : N (* zero *)
| s : N -> N. (* successor *)
Inductive Add: N -> N -> N -> Prop :=
| add_z: forall n, (Add n z n)
| add_s: forall m n r, (Add m n r) -> (Add m (s n) (s r)).
Fixpoint plus (x y : N) :=
match y with
| z => x
| (s n) => (s (plus x n))
end.
And I would like to prove a simple theorem (analogously to what has been done for last and last_fun in www.cse.chalmers.se/research/group/logic/TypesSS05/resources/coq/CoqArt/inductive-prop-chap/SRC/last.v):
Theorem T1: forall x y r, (plus x y) = r -> (Add x y r).
Proof.
intros x y r. induction y.
simpl. intro H. rewrite H. apply add_z.
case r.
simpl. intro H. discriminate H.
???
But then I get stuck. The induction hypothesis seems strange. I don't know if I defined Add wrongly, or if I am just using wrong tactics. Could you please help me, by either correcting my inductive Add or telling me how to complete this proof?
You introduced r before using induction on y. In general you'll want to use induction before introducing anything so the induction hypothesis is as general as possible.
Conjecture injectivity : forall n m, s n = s m -> n = m.
Theorem T1: forall x y r, (plus x y) = r -> (Add x y r).
Proof.
intros x y. induction y.
simpl. intros r H. rewrite H. apply add_z.
intro r. case r.
simpl. intro H. discriminate H.
simpl. intros n H. apply add_s. apply IHy. apply injectivity. apply H.
Qed.