My question relates to how to construct an exist term in the set of conditions/hypotheses.
I have the following intermediate proof state:
X : Type
P : X -> Prop
H : (exists x : X, P x -> False) -> False
x : X
H0 : P x -> False
______________________________________(1/1)
P x
In my mind, I know that because of H0, x is a witness for (exists x : X, P x -> False), and I want to introduce a name:
w: (exists x : X, P x -> False)
based on the above reasoning and then use it with apply H in w to generate a False in the hypothesis, and finally inversion the False.
But I don't know what tactic/syntax to use to introduce the witness w above. The best I can reach so far is that Check (ex_intro _ (fun x => P x -> False) x H0)). gives False.
Can someone explain how to introduce the existential condition, or an alternative way to finish the proof?
Thanks.
P.S. What I have for the whole theorem to prove is:
Theorem not_exists_dist :
excluded_middle ->
forall (X:Type) (P : X -> Prop),
~ (exists x, ~ P x) -> (forall x, P x).
Proof.
unfold excluded_middle. unfold not.
intros exm X P H x.
destruct (exm (P x)).
apply H0.
Check (H (ex_intro _ (fun x => P x -> False) x H0)).
Here, since you already know how to construct a term of type False, you can add it to the context using pose proof. This gives:
pose proof (H (ex_intro (fun x => P x -> False) x H0))
You can even directly destruct the term, which solves the goal.
destruct (H (ex_intro (fun x => P x -> False) x H0))
Another way to finish your proof is to prove False. You can change the goal to False with tactics like exfalso or contradiction. With this approach, you can use hypotheses of the form _ -> False that are otherwise difficult to manipulate. For your proof, you can write:
exfalso. apply H. (* or directly, contradiction H *)
exists x. assumption.
You could use the assert tactic:
assert(w: exists x, P x -> False).
It will ask you to prove this statement in a new sub-goal, and will add w to your existing goal. For this kind of trivial proof, you can inline the proof directly:
assert(w: exists x, P x -> False) by (exists x; exact H0).
Related
That's pretty clear what destruct H does if H contains conjunction or disjunction. But I can't figure out what it does in general case. It does something bizarre, especially if H: a -> b.
Some examples:
Lemma demo : forall (x y: nat), x=4 -> x=4.
Proof.
intros. destruct H.
The hypothesis is just destroyed:
1 subgoal
x, y : nat
______________________________________(1/1)
x = x
Another one:
Lemma demo : forall (x y: nat), (x = 4 -> x=4) -> True.
Proof.
intros. destruct H.
Now I have two branches:
1 subgoal
x, y : nat
______________________________________(1/1)
x = 4
1 subgoal
x, y : nat
______________________________________(1/1)
True
Third example. It's not provable but it still doesn't make sense to me:
Lemma demo : forall (x y: nat), (x = 4 -> x = 4) -> x = 4.
Proof.
intros. destruct H.
Now I have to prove x = x in the second branch!
2 subgoals
x, y : nat
______________________________________(1/2)
x = 4
______________________________________(2/2)
x = x
So, I clearly don't understand what destruct H does.
The cases you are referring to fall in two categories. If H : A and A is inductively or coinductively defined (e.g., conjunction and disjunction), then destruct H generates one subgoal for each constructor in that type, with additional hypotheses determined by the arguments of that constructor. On the other hand, if H : A -> B, then destruct H generates one subgoal where you have to prove A, and then continues recursively as if H : B. This is roughly equivalent to the following calls:
assert (H' : A); [ |specialize (H H'); destruct H].
The missing piece of the puzzle is that equality itself is defined as an inductive type:
Inductive eq (A : Type) (a : A) : A -> Prop :=
| eq_refl : eq A a a
When you destruct something of type x = 4, Coq generates one case for each constructor of that type. But there is only one constructor in that type: eq_refl. When considering that case, Coq also automatically replaces occurrences of the RHS of destructed equality by the LHS (since both sides are equal for that constructor). In your first and third examples, this leads to replacing 4 in the goal with x.
Most of the time, you do not want to destruct an equality hypothesis, since this replacement behavior is not very useful. It is usually better to use the rewrite tactic, since it allows you to rewrite from rightto-left or left-to-right.
I can figure out how to prove my "degree_descent" Theorem below if I really need to:
Variable X : Type.
Variable degree : X -> nat.
Variable P : X -> Prop.
Axiom inductive_by_degree : forall n, (forall x, S (degree x) = n -> P x) -> (forall x, degree x = n -> P x).
Lemma hacky_rephrasing : forall n, forall x, degree x = n -> P x.
Proof. induction n; intros.
- apply (inductive_by_degree 0). discriminate. exact H.
- apply (inductive_by_degree (S n)); try exact H. intros y K. apply IHn. injection K; auto.
Qed.
Theorem degree_descent : forall x, P x.
Proof. intro. apply (hacky_rephrasing (degree x)); reflexivity.
Qed.
but this "hacky_rephrasing" Lemma is an ugly and unintuitive pattern to me. Is there a better way to prove degree_descent all by itself? For example, using set or pose to introduce n := degree x and then invoking induction n isn't working because it annihilates the hypothesis from the subsequent contexts (if someone could explain why this occurs, too, that would be helpful!). I can't figure out how to get generalize to work with me here, either.
PS: This is just weak induction for simplicity, but ideally I would like the solution to work with custom induction schemes via induction ... using ....
It looks like you would like to use the remember tactic:
Variable X : Type.
Variable degree : X -> nat.
Variable P : X -> Prop.
Axiom inductive_by_degree : forall n, (forall x, S (degree x) = n -> P x) -> (forall x, degree x = n -> P x).
Theorem degree_descent : forall x, P x.
Proof.
intro x. remember (degree x) as n eqn:E.
symmetry in E. revert x E.
(* Goal: forall x : X, degree x = n -> P x *)
Restart. From Coq Require Import ssreflect.
(* Or ssreflect style *)
move=> x; move: {2}(degree x) (eq_refl : degree x = _)=> n.
(* ... *)
Given the following axioms:
Definition Axiom1 : Prop := forall (a b:Type) (f g: a -> b),
(forall x, f x = g x) -> f = g.
Definition Axiom2 : Prop := forall (a:Type) (B:a -> Type) (f g: forall x, B x),
(forall x, f x = g x) -> f = g.
One can easily show that Axiom2 is a stronger axiom than Axiom1:
Theorem Axiom2ImpAxiom1 : Axiom2 -> Axiom1.
Proof.
intros H a b f g H'. apply H. exact H'.
Qed.
Does anyone know if (within the type theory of Coq), these two axioms are in fact equivalent or whether they are known not to be. If equivalent, is there a simple Coq proof of the fact?
Yes, the two axioms are equivalent; the key is to go through fun x => existT B x (f x) and fun x => existT B x (g x), though there's some tricky equality reasoning that has to be done. There's a nearly complete proof at https://github.com/HoTT/HoTT/blob/c54a967526bb6293a0802cb2bed32e0b4dbe5cdc/contrib/old/Funext.v#L113-L358 which uses slightly different terminology.
I have two elements f : X -> bool and x : X.
How to define g : X -> bool such g x = true and g y = f y for y != x.
Following your answer to my comment, I don't think you can define a "function" g, because you need a constructive way do distinguish x from other instances of type X. However you could define a relation between the two, which could be transformed into a function if you get decidability.
Something like:
Parameter X : Type.
Parameter f : X -> bool.
Parameter x : X.
Inductive gRel : X -> bool -> Prop :=
| is_x : gRel x true
| is_not_x : forall y: X, y <> x -> gRel y (f y)
.
Definition gdec (h: forall a b: X, {a = b}+{a <> b}) : X -> bool :=
fun a => if h a x then true else f a.
Lemma gRel_is_a_fun: (forall a b: X, {a = b}+{a <> b}) ->
exists g : X -> bool, forall a, gRel a (g a).
Proof.
intro hdec.
exists (gdec hdec); unfold gdec.
intro a; destruct (hdec a x).
now subst; apply is_x.
now apply is_not_x.
Qed.
Just complementing Vinz's answer, there's no way of defining such a function for arbitrary X, because it implies that X has "almost decidable" equality:
Section Dec.
Variable X : Type.
Variable override : (X -> bool) -> X -> X -> bool.
Hypothesis Hoverride_eq : forall f x, override f x x = true.
Hypothesis Hoverride_neq : forall f x x', x <> x' -> override f x x' = f x'.
Lemma xeq_dec' (x x' : X) : {~ x <> x'} + {x <> x'}.
Proof.
destruct (override (fun _ => false) x x') eqn:E.
- left.
intros contra.
assert (H := Hoverride_neq (fun _ => false) _ _ contra).
simpl in H.
congruence.
- right.
intros contra.
subst x'.
rewrite Hoverride_eq in E.
discriminate.
Qed.
End Dec.
This lemma says that if there's a way of doing what you asked for for X, then one can test whether two elements x and x' of X are equal, except that the proof of equality that one gets in the true case is actually a proof of the double negation of x = x'.
Is it possible to give a counterexample for a statement which doesn't hold in general? Like, for example that the all quantor does not distribute over the connective "or". How would you state that to begin with?
Parameter X : Set.
Parameter P : X -> Prop.
Parameter Q : X -> Prop.
(* This holds in general *)
Theorem forall_distributes_over_and
: (forall x:X, P x /\ Q x) -> ((forall x:X, P x) /\ (forall x:X, Q x)).
Proof.
intro H. split. apply H. apply H.
Qed.
(* This doesn't hold in general *)
Theorem forall_doesnt_distributes_over_or
: (forall x:X, P x \/ Q x) -> ((forall x:X, P x) \/ (forall x:X, Q x)).
Abort.
Here is a quick and dirty way to prove something similar to what you want:
Theorem forall_doesnt_distributes_over_or:
~ (forall X P Q, (forall x:X, P x \/ Q x) -> ((forall x:X, P x) \/ (forall x:X, Q x))).
Proof.
intros H.
assert (X : forall x : bool, x = true \/ x = false).
destruct x; intuition.
specialize (H _ (fun b => b = true) (fun b => b = false) X).
destruct H as [H|H].
now specialize (H false).
now specialize (H true).
Qed.
I have to quantify X P and Q inside the negation in order to be able to provide the one I want. You couldn't quite do that with your Parameters as they somehow fixed an abstract X, P and Q, thus making your theorem potentially true.
In general, if you want to produce a counterexample, you can state the negation of the formula and then prove that this negation is satisfied.