I have question as follows: A set A is defined and total function X with invariant type
X ∈ A --> BOOL
and an event A_setSate:
A_setSate =
WHEN X(A) = TRUE
THEN X(A) := FALSE
the problem is that the proof obligation event preservation (INV) of A_setState cannot preserve the invariant X∈ A--> BOOL:
I know it is because of the invariant is not strong enough, but I could not create a stronger invariant.
full example : Example snipping
The example looks correct.
Please check if the Atelier B provers are installed, the Rodin Handbook contains instructions for this.
(This answer had been updated after some clarifications in the comments.)
Related
I've been trying to understand what Set is after encountering it in Adam Chlipala's book in addition to this great discussion in SO. His first example definition binary ops using Set:
Inductive binop : Set := Plus | Times.
in that book he says:
Second, there is the : Set fragment, which declares that we are defining a datatype that should be thought of as a constituent of programs.
Which confuses me. What does Adam mean here?
In addition, I thought that some additional concrete examples would help my understanding. I am not an expert of Coq so I am not sure what type of examples would help but something simple and very concrete/grounded might be useful.
Note, I have seen that Set is the first "type set" in a the type hierarchy e.g. Set = Type(0) <= Type = Type(1) <= Type(2) <= ... . I guess this sort of makes sense intuitively like I'd assume nat \in Type and all usual programming types to be in it but not sure what would be in Type that wouldn't be in Set. Perhaps recursive types? Not sure if that is the right example but I am trying to wrap my head around what this concept means and it's conceptual (& practical) usefulness.
Though Set and Type are different in Coq, this is mostly due to historical reasons. Nowadays, most developments do not rely on Set being different from Type. In particular, Adam's comment would also make sense if you replace Set by Type everywhere. The main point is that, when you want to define a datatype that you can compute with during execution (e.g. a number), you want to put it in Set or Type rather than Prop. This is because things that live in Prop are erased when you extract programs from Coq, so something defined in Prop would end up not computing anything.
As for your second question: Set is something that lives in Type, but not in Set, as the following snippet shows.
Check Set : Type. (* This works *)
Fail Check Set : Set.
(* The command has indeed failed with message: *)
(* The term "Set" has type "Type" while it is expected to have type *)
(* "Set" (universe inconsistency: Cannot enforce Set+1 <= Set). *)
This restriction is in place to prevent paradoxes in the theory. This is pretty much the only difference you see between Set and Type by default. You can also make them more different by invoking Coq with the -impredicative-set option:
(* Needs -impredicative-set; otherwise, the first line will also fail.*)
Check (forall A : Set, A -> A) : Set.
Universe u.
Fail Check (forall A : Type#{u}, A -> A) : Type#{u}.
(* The command has indeed failed with message: *)
(* The term "forall A : Type, A -> A" has type "Type#{u+1}" *)
(* while it is expected to have type "Type#{u}" (universe inconsistency: Cannot enforce *)
(* u < u because u = u). *)
Note that I had to add the Universe u. declaration to force the two occurrences of Type to be at the same level. Without this declaration, Coq would silently put the two Types at different universe levels, and the command would be accepted. (This would not mean that Type would have the same behavior as Set in this example, since Type#{u} and Type#{v} are different things when u and v are different!)
If you're wondering why this feature is useful, it is not by chance. The overwhelming majority of Coq developments does not rely on it. It is turned off by default because it is incompatible with a few axioms that are generally considered more useful in Coq developments, such as the strong law of the excluded middle:
forall A : Prop, {A} + {~ A}
With -impredicative-set turned on, this axiom yields a paradox, while it is safe to use by default.
In my spec, I'm trying to check if a change in a sequence is either -1, 0 or 1.
I described this invariant as below :
PVariance == Len(waitingRoomP') - Len(waitingRoomP) \in {-1,0,1}
CVariance == Len(waitingRoomC') - Len(waitingRoomC) \in {-1,0,1}
Invariants ==
/\ TypeInv
/\ \/ PVariance
\/ CVariance
The TLC model checker outputs this :
The invariant Invariants is not a state predicate (one with no primes or temporal operators).
Note that a bug can cause TLC to incorrectly report this error.
If you believe your TLA+ or PlusCal specification to be correct,
please check if this bug described in LevelNode.java starting at line 590ff affects you.
waitingRoomP' is the value of waitingRoomP in the next state, meaning PVariance is now an action. Invariants can't be actions, they can only be "pure" operators.
You can instead check PVariance as an action property by writing [][PVariance]_waitingRoomP. This will need to be checked as a temporal property in the toolbox, not an invariant.
I am struggling with the plus operator between two propositions (maybe types) in Coq. I already could figure out this is something like "or" (maybe "xor") and I think it says that something is decidable but I cannot understand the complete meaning of it, and where does this sign come from (in classical mathematics).
P. S. Of course I already googled and researched but couldn't find the complete sophisticated answer I want.
That's the sum datatype, where A + B is basically A or B. The main difference with A \/ B is that it lives in Type, so it has computational content. That is to say, given A \/ B you cannot produce a boolean such that if A then true else false.
Another way to see it is that for A B : Prop, A + B -> A \/ B holds, but not the converse.
Prop is a special, impredicative sort in Coq; I recommend reading the manual about it.
I am formalizing a grammar which is essentially one over boolean expressions. In coq, you can get boolean-like things in Prop or more explicitly in bool.
So for example, I could write:
true && true
Or
True /\ True
The problem is that in proofs (which is what I really care about) I can do a case analysis in domain bool, but in Prop this is not possible (since all members are not enumerable, I suppose). Giving up this tactic and similar rewriting tactics seems like a huge drawback even for very simple proofs.
In general, what situations would one choose Prop over bool for formalizing? I realize this is a broad question, but I feel like this is not addressed in the Coq manual sufficiently. I am interested in real world experience people have had going down both routes.
There are lots of different opinions on this. My personal take is that you are often better off not making this choice: it makes sense to have two versions of a property, one in Prop, the other one in bool.
Why would you want this? As you pointed out, booleans support case analysis in proofs and functions, which general propositions do not. However, Prop is more convenient to use in certain cases. Suppose you have a type T with finitely many values. We can write a procedure
all : (T -> bool) -> bool
that decides whether a boolean property P : T -> bool holds of all elements of T. Imagine that we know that all P = true, for some property P. We might want to use this fact to conclude that P x = true for some value x. To do this, we need to prove a lemma about all:
allP : forall P : T -> bool,
all P = true <-> (forall x : T, P x = true)
This lemma connects two different formulations of the same property: a boolean one and a propositional one. When reasoning about all in a proof, we can invoke allP to convert freely between the two. We can also have different conversion lemmas:
allPn : forall P,
all P = false <-> (exists x, P x = false)
In fact, we are free to choose any Coq proposition whatsoever to relate to a boolean computation (as long, of course, as we can prove that the two are logically equivalent). For instance, if we would like to have a custom induction principle associated with a boolean property, we can look for an equivalent formulation as an inductively defined proposition.
The Mathematical Components library is a good example of development that follows this style. Indeed, because it is so pervasive there, the library provides a special view mechanism for writing conversion lemmas like the one above and applying them. In plain Coq, we can also use the rewrite tactic to apply logical equivalences more conveniently.
Of course, there are many situations where it does not make sense to have two formulations of the same property. Sometimes, you are forced to use Prop, because the property you care about is undecidable. Sometimes, you might feel that you wouldn't gain anything by writing your property in Prop, and may keep it only as a boolean.
In addition to the Software Foundations chapter linked above, this answer discusses the difference between bool and Prop in more depth.
I'm still puzzled what the sort Set means in Coq. When do I use Set and when do I use Type?
In Hott a Set is defined as a type, where identity proofs are unique.
But I think in Coq it has a different interpretation.
Set means rather different things in Coq and HoTT.
In Coq, every object has a type, including types themselves. Types of types are usually referred to as sorts, kinds or universes. In Coq, the (computationally relevant) universes are Set, and Type_i, where i ranges over natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...). We have the following inclusions:
Set <= Type_0 <= Type_1 <= Type_2 <= ...
These universes are typed as follows:
Set : Type_i for any i
Type_i : Type_j for any i < j
Like in Hott, this stratification is needed to ensure logical consistency. As Antal pointed out, Set behaves mostly like the smallest Type, with one exception: it can be made impredicative when you invoke coqtop with the -impredicative-set option. Concretely, this means that forall X : Set, A is of type Set whenever A is. In contrast, forall X : Type_i, A is of type Type_(i + 1), even when A has type Type_i.
The reason for this difference is that, due to logical paradoxes, only the lowest level of such a hierarchy can be made impredicative. You may then wonder then why Set is not made impredicative by default. This is because an impredicative Set is inconsistent with a strong form of the axiom of the excluded middle:
forall P : Prop, {P} + {~ P}.
What this axiom allows you to do is to write functions that can decide arbitrary propositions. Note that the {P} + {~ P} type lives in Set, and not Prop. The usual form of the excluded middle, forall P : Prop, P \/ ~ P, cannot be used in the same way, because things that live in Prop cannot be used in a computationally relevant way.
In addition to Arthur's answer:
From the fact that Set is located at the bottom of the hierarchy,
it follows that Set is the type of the “small” datatypes and function types, i.e. the ones whose values do not directly or indirectly involve types.
That means the following will fail:
Fail Inductive Ts : Set :=
| constrS : Set -> Ts.
with this error message:
Large non-propositional inductive types must be in Type.
As the message suggests, we can amend it by using Type:
Inductive Tt : Type :=
| constrT : Set -> Tt.
Reference:
The Essence of Coq as a Formal System by B. Jacobs (2013), pdf.