I got stuck on the exercise to prove my defined tree height is 3. I've found the binary tree coq code online, but the tree I defined is not a binary tree. The node contains arbitrary number.
tree pic attach:
Below is my code for the tree:
Inductive tree (X:Type) : Type :=
| empty : tree X
| branch : X -> list (tree X) -> tree X.
Arguments tree {X}.
Arguments empty {X}.
Arguments branch {X}.
Definition mytree :=
branch 1 [ branch 5 [ branch 2 [empty] ] ; branch 8 [empty] ;
branch 7 [ branch 3 [empty];branch 4 [empty] ] ].
Fixpoint height {X: Type} (node: #tree X) : nat :=
match node with
| empty => 0
| branch _ l => S (match l with
| [] => 0
| h::t => S (height h)
end)
end.
Below is the unit test. I tried to prove that my tree height is 3 (shown as pic)
Example test_height:
height mytree = 3.
Proof.
simpl.
after i simpl it, it showed: 6 = 3:
1 subgoal
______________________________________(1/1)
6 = 3
I guess is BC one or more functions that I defined previously are wrong. But I am not sure which one is it and why they are wrong?
Could anyone help or give me some hint? Thank you so much
PS: there's also a hint for the exercise stated:
Hint:
You may need to define mutually recursive functions using let expressions.
And it gives how let expression works as below:
• Naming a recursive function (needs keyword fix):
Definition a := let fix f (x:nat) := match x with
| O => O
| S y => f y
end
in f 2.
But I am not sure how to use this let in my exercise.
You've defined the height function incorrectly. You should define height by the pseudocode
height empty = 0
height (branch _ children) = 1 + max [height child | child in children]
where the max should return 0 if children is empty. Once you've defined the height function correctly, you should just be able to use reflexivity to prove the proposition.
Fixpoint height {X: Type} (t: tree X) : nat :=
match t with
| emp_tr _ => 0
| node_tr _ l => let fix height_list (ltrees: list (tree X)) :=
match ltrees with
| [] => 0
| htr :: ttr => max (height htr) (height_list ttr)
end
in 1 + height_list l
end.
Used let to solve.
Related
Let's define two helper types:
Inductive AB : Set := A | B.
Inductive XY : Set := X | Y.
Then two other types that depend on XY and AB
Inductive Wrapped : AB -> XY -> Set :=
| W : forall (ab : AB) (xy : XY), Wrapped ab xy
| WW : forall (ab : AB), Wrapped ab (match ab with A => X | B => Y end)
.
Inductive Wrapper : XY -> Set :=
WrapW : forall (xy : XY), Wrapped A xy -> Wrapper xy.
Note the WW constructor – it can only be value of types Wrapped A X and Wrapped B Y.
Now I would like to pattern match on Wrapper Y:
Definition test (wr : Wrapper Y): nat :=
match wr with
| WrapW Y w =>
match w with
| W A Y => 27
end
end.
but I get error
Error: Non exhaustive pattern-matching: no clause found for pattern WW _
Why does it happen? Wrapper forces contained Wrapped to be A version, the type signature forces Y and WW constructor forbids being A and Y simultaneously. I don't understand why this case is being even considered, while I am forced to check it which seems to be impossible.
How to workaround this situation?
Let's simplify:
Inductive MyTy : Set -> Type :=
MkMyTy : forall (A : Set), A -> MyTy A.
Definition extract (m : MyTy nat) : nat :=
match m with MkMyTy _ x => S x end.
This fails:
The term "x" has type "S" while it is expected to have type "nat".
wat.
This is because I said
Inductive MyTy : Set -> Type
This made the first argument to MyTy an index of MyTy, as opposed to a parameter. An inductive type with a parameter may look like this:
Inductive list (A : Type) : Type :=
| nil : list A
| cons : A -> list A -> list A.
Parameters are named on the left of the :, and are not forall-d in the definition of each constructor. (They are still present in the constructors' types outside of the definition: cons : forall (A : Type), A -> list A -> list A.) If I make the Set a parameter of MyTy, then extract can be defined:
Inductive MyTy (A : Set) : Type :=
MkMyTy : A -> MyTy A.
Definition extract (m : MyTy nat) : nat :=
match m with MkMyTy _ x => S x end.
The reason for this is that, on the inside, a match ignores anything you know about the indices of the scrutinee from the outside. (Or, rather, the underlying match expression in Gallina ignores the indices. When you write a match in the source code, Coq tries to convert it into the primitive form while incorporating information from the indices, but it often fails.) The fact that m : MyTy nat in the first version of extract simply did not matter. Instead, the match gave me S : Set (the name was automatically chosen by Coq) and x : S, as per the constructor MkMyTy, with no mention of nat. Meanwhile, because MyTy has a parameter in the second version, I actually get x : nat. The _ is really a placeholder this time; it is mandatory to write it as _, because there's nothing to match, and you can Set Asymmetric Patterns to make it disappear.
The reason we distinguish between parameters and indices is because parameters have a lot of restrictions—most notably, if I is an inductive type with parameters, then the parameters must appear as variables in the return type of each constructor:
Inductive F (A : Set) : Set := MkF : list A -> F (list A).
(* ^--------^ BAD: must appear as F A *)
In your problem, we should make parameters where we can. E.g. the match wr with Wrap Y w => _ end bit is wrong, because the XY argument to Wrapper is an index, so the fact that wr : Wrapper Y is ignored; you would need to handle the Wrap X w case too. Coq hasn't gotten around to telling you that.
Inductive Wrapped (ab : AB) : XY -> Set :=
| W : forall (xy : XY), Wrapped ab xy
| WW : Wrapped ab (match ab with A => X | B => Y end).
Inductive Wrapper (xy : XY) : Set := WrapW : Wrapped A xy -> Wrapper xy.
And now your test compiles (almost):
Definition test (wr : Wrapper Y): nat :=
match wr with
| WrapW _ w => (* mandatory _ *)
match w with
| W _ Y => 27 (* mandatory _ *)
end
end.
because having the parameters gives Coq enough information for its match-elaboration to use information from Wrapped's index. If you issue Print test., you can see that there's a bit of hoop-jumping to pass information about the index Y through the primitive matchs which would otherwise ignore it. See the reference manual for more information.
The solution turned out to be simple but tricky:
Definition test (wr : Wrapper Y): nat.
refine (match wr with
| WrapW Y w =>
match w in Wrapped ab xy return ab = A -> xy = Y -> nat with
| W A Y => fun _ _ => 27
| _ => fun _ _ => _
end eq_refl eq_refl
end);
[ | |destruct a]; congruence.
Defined.
The issue was that Coq didn't infer some necessary invariants to realize that WW case is ridiculous. I had to explicitly give it a proof for it.
In this solution I changed match to return a function that takes two proofs and brings them to the context of our actual result:
ab is apparently A
xy is apparently Y
I have covered real cases ignoring these assumptions, and I deferred "bad" cases to be proven false later which turned to be trivial. I was forced to pass the eq_refls manually, but it worked and does not look that bad.
I am trying to count the # of occurrences of an element v in a natlist/bag in Coq. I tried:
Fixpoint count (v:nat) (s:bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => 0
| h :: tl => match h with
| v => 1 + (count v tl)
end
end.
however my proof doesn't work:
Example test_count1: count 1 [1;2;3;1;4;1] = 3.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
Why doesn't the first piece of code work? What is it doing when v isn't matched?
I also tried:
Fixpoint count (v:nat) (s:bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => 0
| h :: tl => match h with
| v => 1 + (count v tl)
| _ => count v tl
end
end.
but that also gives an error in Coq and I can't even run it.
Functional programming is sort of new to me so I don't know how to actually express this in Coq. I really just want to say if h matches v then do a +1 and recurse else only recurse (i.e. add zero I guess).
Is there a simple way to express this in Coq's functional programming language?
The reason that I ask is because it feels to me that the match thing is very similar to an if else statement in "normal" Python programming. So either I am missing the point of functional programming or something. That is the main issue I am concerned I guess, implicitly.
(this is similar to Daniel's answer, but I had already written most of it)
Your problem is that in this code:
match h with
| v => 1 + (count v tl)
end
matching with v binds a new variable v. To test if h is equal to v, you'll have to use some decision procedure for testing equality of natural numbers.
For example, you could use Nat.eqb, which takes two natural numbers and returns a bool indicating whether they're equal.
Require Import Nat.
Fixpoint count (v:nat) (s:bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => 0
| h :: tl => if (eqb h v) then (1 + count v t1) else (count v t1)
end.
Why can't we simply match on the term we want? Pattern matching always matches on constructors of the type. In this piece of code, the outer match statement matches with nil and h :: t1 (which is a notation for cons h t1 or something similar, depending on the precise definition of bag). In a match statement like
match n with
| 0 => (* something *)
| S n => (* something else *)
end.
we match on the constructors for nat: 0 and S _.
In your original code, you try to match on v, which isn't a constructor, so Coq simply binds a new variable and calls it v.
The match statement you tried to write actually just shadows the v variable with a new variable also called v which contains just a copy of h.
In order to test whether two natural numbers are equal, you can use Nat.eqb which returns a bool value which you can then match against:
Require Import Arith.
Fixpoint count (v:nat) (s:bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => 0
| h :: tl => match Nat.eqb v h with
| true => 1 + (count v tl)
| false => count v tl
end
end.
As it happens, for matching of bool values with true or false, Coq also provides syntactic sugar in the form of a functional if/else construct (which is much like the ternary ?: operator from C or C++ if you're familiar with either of those):
Require Import Arith.
Fixpoint count (v:nat) (s:bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => 0
| h :: tl => if Nat.eqb v h then
1 + (count v tl)
else
count v tl
end.
(Actually, it happens that if works with any inductive type with exactly two constructors: then the first constructor goes to the if branch and the second constructor goes to the else branch. However, the list type has nil as its first constructor and cons as its second constructor: so even though you could technically write an if statement taking in a list to test for emptiness or nonemptiness, it would end up reversed from the way you would probably expect it to work.)
In general, however, for a generic type there won't necessarily be a way to decide whether two members of that type are equal or not, as there was Nat.eqb in the case of nat. Therefore, if you wanted to write a generalization of count which could work for more general types, you would have to take in an argument specifying the equality decision procedure.
I'm trying to implement a function that simply counts the number of occurrences of some nat in a bag (just a synonym for a list).
This is what I want to do, but it doesn't work:
Require Import Coq.Lists.List.
Import ListNotations.
Definition bag := list nat.
Fixpoint count (v:nat) (s:bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => O
| v :: t => S (count v t)
| _ :: t => count v t
end.
Coq says that the final clause is redundant, i.e., it just treats v as a name for the head instead of the specific v that is passed to the call of count. Is there any way to pattern match on values passed as function arguments? If not, how should I instead write the function?
I got this to work:
Fixpoint count (v:nat) (s:bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => O
| h :: t => if (beq_nat v h) then S (count v t) else count v t
end.
But I don't like it. I'd rather pattern match if possible.
Pattern matching is a different construction from equality, meant to discriminate data encoded in form of "inductives", as standard in functional programming.
In particular, pattern matching falls short in many cases, such as when you need potentially infinite patterns.
That being said, a more sensible type for count is the one available in the math-comp library:
count : forall T : Type, pred T -> seq T -> nat
Fixpoint count s := if s is x :: s' then a x + count s' else 0.
You can then build your function as count (pred1 x) where pred1 : forall T : eqType, T -> pred T , that is to say, the unary equality predicate for a fixed element of a type with decidable (computable) equality; pred1 x y <-> x = y.
I found in another exercise that it's OK to open up a match clause on the output of a function. In that case, it was "evenb" from "Basics". In this case, try "eqb".
Well, as v doesn't work in the match, I thought that maybe I could ask whether the head of the list was equal to v. And yes, it worked. This is the code:
Fixpoint count (v : nat) (s : bag) : nat :=
match s with
| nil => 0
| x :: t =>
match x =? v with
| true => S ( count v t )
| false => count v t
end
end.
I've been using Coq for a very short time and I still bump into walls with some things. I've defined a set with a Record construction. Now I need to do some pattern matching to use it, but I'm having issues properly using it. First, these are my elements.
Inductive element : Set :=
| empty : element
.
.
.
| fun_m : element -> element -> element
| n_fun : nat -> element -> element
.
I pick the elements with certain characteristic to make a subset of them the next way:
Inductive esp_char : elements -> Prop :=
| esp1 : esp_char empty
| esp2 : forall (n : nat )(E : element), esp_char E -> esp_char (n_fun n E).
Record especial : Set := mk_esp{ E : element ; C : (esp_char E)}.
Now, I need to use definition and fix point on the 'especial' elements, just the two that I picked. I have read the documentation on Record and what I get is that I'd need to do something like this:
Fixpoint Size (E : especial): nat :=
match E with
|{|E := empty |} => 0
|{|E := n_fun n E0|} => (Size E0) + 1
end.
Of course this tells me that I'm missing everything on the inductive part of elements so I add {|E := _ |}=> 0, or anything, just to make the induction full. Even doing this, I then find this problem:
|{|E := n_fun n E0|} => (Size E0) + 1
Error:
In environment
Size : especial -> nat
E : especial
f : element
i : esp_char f
n : nat
E0 : element
The term "E0" has type "element" while it is expected to have type "especial".
What I have been unable to do is fix that last thing, I have a lemma proving that if n_fun n E0 is 'especial' then E0 is especial, but I can't build it as so inside the Fixpoint. I also defined the size for "all elements" and then just picked the "especial" ones in a definition, but I want to be able to do direct pattern matching directly on the set "especial". Thank you for your input.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that I also have a coercion to always send especial to elements.
EDIT: This is the approach I had before posting:
Fixpoint ElementSize (E : element): nat :=
match E with
| n_fun n E0 => (ElementSize E0) + 1
| _ => 0
end.
Definition Size (E : especial) := ElementSize E.
I'd have tried to do:
Lemma mk_especial_proof n E : esp_char (n_fun n E) -> esp_char E.
Proof. now intros U; inversion U. Qed.
Fixpoint Size (E : especial): nat :=
match E with
|{|E := empty |} => 0
|{|E := n_fun n E0; C := P |} => (Size (mk_esp E0 (mk_especial_proof _ _ P))) + 1
|{|E := fun_m E1 E2 |} => 0
end.
However this will fail the termination check. I'm not familiar with how to overcome this problem with records. I'd definitively follow the approach I mentioned in the comments (using a fixpoint over the base datatype).
EDIT: Added single fixpoint solution.
Fixpoint size_e e :=
match e with
| empty => 0
| fun_m e1 e2 => 0
| n_fun _ e => 1 + size_e e
end.
Definition size_esp e := size_e (E e).
I reduced your example to this, but you can easily go back to your definition. We have a set, and a subset defined by an inductive predicate. Often one uses sigma types for this, with the notation {b | Small b}, but it is actually the same as the Record definition used in your example, so never mind :-).
Inductive Big : Set := (* a big set *)
| A
| B (b0 b1:Big)
| C (b: Big).
Inductive Small : Big -> Prop := (* a subset *)
| A' : Small A
| C' (b:Big) : Small b -> Small (C b).
Record small := mk_small { b:Big ; P:Small b }.
Here is a solution.
Lemma Small_lemma: forall b, Small (C b) -> Small b.
Proof. intros b H; now inversion H. Qed.
Fixpoint size (b : Big) : Small b -> nat :=
match b with
| A => fun _ => 0
| B _ _ => fun _ => 0
| C b' => fun H => 1 + size b' (Small_lemma _ H)
end.
Definition Size (s:small) : nat :=
let (b,H) := s in size b H.
To be able to use the hypothesis H in the match-branches, it is sent into the branch as a function argument. Otherwise the destruction of b is not performed on the H term, and Coq can't prove that we do a structural recursion on H.
Suppose I have the following tactic to check if a term is the literal zero:
Ltac isZero x :=
match x with
| O => constr:true
| _ => constr:false
end.
Goal Set.
let isz := isZero O in pose isz.
(* adds true to the context *)
Now imagine that I want the tactic to accept a bit more; maybe any term that is convertible with zero. If this was a tactic acting on the goal, I would do
Ltac isZero x :=
match x with
| ?v => unify v 0; constr:true
| _ => constr:false
end.
but this fails for a tactic producing terms:
Error: Value is a term. Expected a tactic.
How can I check for convertibility in a tactic producing terms? In this specific example reducing x or computing it (let xx := eval compute in x) may work, but in more complex example the cost of computing could be prohibitive, especially as I would need to reduce the two terms of the comparison.
PS: For reference, the unsimplified issue is that I'm trying to efficiently lookup a key probably matching a value in an FMap built by sequences of calls to add, and the tactic looks like
Ltac find_key value :=
match fmap with
| add ?k value _ => constr:(Some k)
| add _ _ ?m => find_key value m
| _ => constr:None
end
With this implementation, if instead of value the map contains a term convertible to value but not syntactically equal to it, the tactic will incorrectly return None.
You can try to construct a term that triggers the conversion check; for instance:
Goal 2 + 2 = 4.
match goal with
| |- ?a = ?b =>
let e := constr:(eq_refl a : a = b) in
idtac "equal"
| |- _ => idtac "not equal"
end.
Normally, this prints "equal". However, if you replace 4 by, say, 3 in the goal above, the inner branch fails, printing "not equal".