I would like to prove that termination implies existence of normal form. These are my definitions:
Section Forms.
Require Import Classical_Prop.
Require Import Classical_Pred_Type.
Context {A : Type}
Variable R : A -> A -> Prop.
Definition Inverse (Rel : A -> A -> Prop) := fun x y => Rel y x.
Inductive ReflexiveTransitiveClosure : Relation A A :=
| rtc_into (x y : A) : R x y -> ReflexiveTransitiveClosure x y
| rtc_trans (x y z : A) : R x y -> ReflexiveTransitiveClosure y z ->
ReflexiveTransitiveClosure x z
| rtc_refl (x y : A) : x = y -> ReflexiveTransitiveClosure x y.
Definition redc (x : A) := exists y, R x y.
Definition nf (x : A) := ~(redc x).
Definition nfo (x y : A) := ReflexiveTransitiveClosure R x y /\ nf y.
Definition terminating := forall x, Acc (Inverse R) x.
Definition normalizing := forall x, (exists y, nfo x y).
End Forms.
I'd like to prove:
Lemma terminating_impl_normalizing (T : terminating):
normalizing.
I have been banging my head against the wall for a couple of hours now, and I've made almost no progress. I can show:
Lemma terminating_not_inf_forall (T : terminating) :
forall f : nat -> A, ~ (forall n, R (f n) (f (S n))).
which I believe should help (this is also true without classic).
Here is a proof using the excluded middle. I reformulated the problem to replace custom definitions by standard ones (note by the way that in your definition of the closure, the rtc_into is redundant with the other ones). I also reformulated terminating using well_founded.
Require Import Classical_Prop.
Require Import Relations.
Section Forms.
Context {A : Type} (R:relation A).
Definition inverse := fun x y => R y x.
Definition redc (x : A) := exists y, R x y.
Definition nf (x : A) := ~(redc x).
Definition nfo (x y : A) := clos_refl_trans _ R x y /\ nf y.
Definition terminating := well_founded inverse. (* forall x, Acc inverse x. *)
Definition normalizing := forall x, (exists y, nfo x y).
Lemma terminating_impl_normalizing (T : terminating):
normalizing.
Proof.
unfold normalizing.
apply (well_founded_ind T). intros.
destruct (classic (redc x)).
- destruct H0 as [y H0]. pose proof (H _ H0).
destruct H1 as [y' H1]. exists y'. unfold nfo.
destruct H1.
split.
+ apply rt_trans with (y:=y). apply rt_step. assumption. assumption.
+ assumption.
- exists x. unfold nfo. split. apply rt_refl. assumption.
Qed.
End Forms.
The proof is not very complicated but here are the main ideas:
use well founded induction
thanks to the excluded middle principle, separate the case where x is not in normal form and the case where it is
if x is not in normal form, use the induction hypothesis and use the transitivity of the closure to conclude
if x is already in normal form, we are done
Related
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.
(* ... *)
A common kind of proof I have to make is something like
Lemma my_lemma : forall y, (forall x x', Q x x' y) -> (forall x x', P x y <-> P x' y).
Proof.
intros y Q_y.
split.
+ <some proof using Q>
+ <the same proof using Q, but x and x' are swapped>
where Q is itself some kind of iff-shaped predicate.
My problem is that the proofs of P x y -> P x' y and P x' y -> P x y are often basically identical, with the only difference between that the roles of x and x' are swapped between them. Can I ask Coq to transform the goal into
forall x x', P x y -> P x' y
which then generalises to the iff case, so that I don't need to repeat myself in the proof?
I had a look through the standard library, the tactic index, and some SO questions, but nothing told me how to do this.
Here is a custom tactic for it:
Ltac sufficient_if :=
match goal with
| [ |- forall (x : ?t) (x' : ?t'), ?T <-> ?U ] => (* If the goal looks like an equivalence (T <-> U) (hoping that T and U are sufficiently similar)... *)
assert (HHH : forall (x : t) (x' : t'), T -> U); (* Change the goal to (T -> U) *)
[ | split; apply HHH ] (* And prove the two directions of the old goal *)
end.
Parameter Q : nat -> nat -> nat -> Prop.
Parameter P : nat -> nat -> Prop.
Lemma my_lemma : forall y, (forall x x', Q x x' y) -> (forall x x', P x y <-> P x' y).
Proof.
intros y Q_y.
sufficient_if.
In mathematics, one often can make "assumptions" "without loss of generality" (WLOG) to simplify proofs of this kind. In your example, you could say "assume without loss of generality that P x y holds. To prove P x y <-> P x' y it is sufficient to prove P x' y."
If you are using ssreflect, you have the wlog tactic.
You essentially cut in another goal which can easily solve your goal. You can also do it with standard tactics like assert or enough (which is like assert but the proof obligations are in the other order).
An example to show what I mean: below I just want to show the implication in one direction, because it can easily solve the implication in the other direction (with firstorder).
Context (T:Type) (P:T->T->Prop).
Goal forall x y, P x y <-> P y x.
enough (forall x y, P x y -> P y x) by firstorder.
Now I just have to show the goal in one direction, because it implies the real goal's both directions.
For more about WLOG see for instance 1
I am trying to implement/specify the permutation groups (symmetric groups) in coq. This went well for a bit, until I tried to prove that the identity is actually the identity. My proof gets stuck on proving that the proposition "x is invertible" is exactly the same as the proposition "id * x is invertible".
Are these two propositions actually the same? Am I trying to prove something that is not true? Is there a better way of specifying the permutation group (as a type)?
(* The permutation group on X contains all functions between X and X that are bijective/invertible *)
Inductive G {X : Type} : Type :=
| function (f: X -> X) (H: exists g: X -> X, forall x : X, f (g x) = x /\ g (f x) = x).
(* Composing two functions preserves invertibility *)
Lemma invertible_composition {X : Type} (f g: X -> X) :
(exists f' : X -> X, forall x : X, f (f' x) = x /\ f' (f x) = x) ->
(exists g' : X -> X, forall x : X, g (g' x) = x /\ g' (g x) = x) ->
exists h : X -> X, forall x : X, (fun x => f (g x)) (h x) = x /\ h ((fun x => f (g x)) x) = x.
Admitted.
(* The group operation is composition *)
Definition op {X : Type} (a b : G) : G :=
match a, b with
| function f H, function g H' => function (fun x => f (g x)) (#invertible_composition X f g H H')
end.
Definition id' {X : Type} (x : X) : X := x.
(* The identity function is invertible *)
Lemma id_invertible {X : Type} : exists g : X -> X, forall x : X, id' (g x) = x /\ g (id' x) = x.
Admitted.
Definition id {X : Type} : (#G X) := function id' id_invertible.
(* The part on which I get stuck: proving that composition with the identity does not change elements. *)
Lemma identity {X: Type} : forall x : G, op id x = x /\ #op X x id = x.
Proof.
intros.
split.
- destruct x.
simpl.
apply f_equal.
Abort.
I believe that your statement cannot be proved without assuming extra axioms:
proof_irrelevance:
forall (P : Prop) (p q : P), p = q.
You need this axiom to show that two elements of G are equal when the underlying functions are:
Require Import Coq.Logic.ProofIrrelevance.
Inductive G X : Type :=
| function (f: X -> X) (H: exists g: X -> X, forall x : X, f (g x) = x /\ g (f x) = x).
Arguments function {X} _ _.
Definition fun_of_G {X} (f : G X) : X -> X :=
match f with function f _ => f end.
Lemma fun_of_G_inj {X} (f g : G X) : fun_of_G f = fun_of_G g -> f = g.
Proof.
destruct f as [f fP], g as [g gP].
simpl.
intros e.
destruct e.
f_equal.
apply proof_irrelevance.
Qed.
(As a side note, it is usually better to declare the X parameter of G explicitly, rather than implicitly. It is rarely the case that Coq can figure out what X should be on its own.)
With fun_of_G_inj, it should be possible to show identity simply by applying it to each equality, because fun a => (fun x => x) (g a) is equal to g for any g.
If you want to use this representation for groups, you'll probably also need the axiom of functional extensionality eventually:
functional_extensionality:
forall X Y (f g : X -> Y), (forall x, f x = g x) -> f = g.
This axiom is available in the Coq.Logic.FunctionalExtensionality module.
If you want to define the inverse element as a function, you probably also need some form of the axiom of choice: it is necessary for extracting the inverse element g from the existence proof.
If you don't want to assume extra axioms, you have to place restrictions on your permutation group. For instance, you can restrict your attention to elements with finite support -- that is, permutation that fix all elements of X, except for a finite set. There are multiple libraries that allow you to work with permutations this way, including my own extensional structures.
According to Homotopy Type Theory (page 49), this is the full induction principle for equality :
Definition path_induction (A : Type) (C : forall x y : A, (x = y) -> Type)
(c : forall x : A, C x x eq_refl) (x y : A) (prEq : x = y)
: C x y prEq :=
match prEq with
| eq_refl => c x
end.
I don't understand much about HoTT, but I do see path induction is stronger than eq_rect :
Lemma path_ind_stronger : forall (A : Type) (x y : A) (P : A -> Type)
(prX : P x) (prEq : x = y),
eq_rect x P prX y prEq =
path_induction A (fun x y pr => P x -> P y) (fun x pr => pr) x y prEq prX.
Proof.
intros. destruct prEq. reflexivity.
Qed.
Conversely, I failed to construct path_induction from eq_rect. Is it possible ? If not, what is the correct induction principle for equality ? I thought those principles were mechanically derived from the Inductive type definitions.
EDIT
Thanks to the answer below, the full induction principle on equality can be generated by
Scheme eq_rect_full := Induction for eq Sort Prop.
Then we get the converse,
Lemma eq_rect_full_works : forall (A : Type) (C : forall x y : A, (x = y) -> Prop)
(c : forall x : A, C x x eq_refl) (x y : A)
(prEq : x = y),
path_induction A C c x y prEq
= eq_rect_full A x (fun y => C x y) (c x) y prEq.
Proof.
intros. destruct prEq. reflexivity.
Qed.
I think you are referring to the fact that the result type of path_induction mentions the path that is being destructed, whereas the one of eq_rect does not. This omission is the default for inductive propositions (as opposed to what happens with Type), because the extra argument is not usually used in proof-irrelevant developments. Nevertheless, you can instruct Coq to generate more complete induction principles with the Scheme command: https://coq.inria.fr/distrib/current/refman/user-extensions/proof-schemes.html?highlight=minimality. (The Minimality variant is the one used for propositions by default.)
I'm new to Coq and am doing some exercises to get more familiar with it.
My understanding is that proving a proposition in Coq "really" is writing down a type in Gallina and then showing that it's inhabited using tactics to combine terms together in deterministic ways.
I'm wondering if there's a way to get a pretty-printed representation of the actual term, with all the tactics removed.
In the example below, an anonymous term of type plus_comm (x y : N) : plus x y = plus y x is ultimately produced... I think. What should I do if I want to look at it? In a certain sense, I'm curious what the tactics "desugar" to.
Here's the code in question, lifted essentially verbatim from a tutorial on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaIn7g8BAIc.
Inductive N : Type :=
| O : N
| S : N -> N
.
Fixpoint plus (x y : N) : N :=
match x with
| O => y
| S x' => S (plus x' y)
end.
Lemma plus_0 (x : N) : plus x O = x.
Proof.
induction x.
- simpl. reflexivity.
- simpl. rewrite IHx. reflexivity.
Qed.
Lemma plus_S (x y : N) : plus x (S y) = S(plus x y).
Proof.
induction x.
- simpl. reflexivity.
- simpl. rewrite IHx. reflexivity.
Qed.
Lemma plus_comm (x y : N) : plus x y = plus y x.
Proof.
induction x.
- simpl. rewrite plus_0. reflexivity.
- simpl. rewrite IHx. rewrite plus_S. reflexivity.
Qed.
First of all, plus_comm is not a part of the type. You get a term named plus_comm of type forall x y : N, plus x y = plus y x. You can check it using the following command
Check plus_comm.
So, an alternative way of defining the plus_comm lemma is
Lemma plus_comm : forall x y : N, plus x y = plus y x.
As a side note: in this case you'll need to add intros x y. (or just intros.) after the Proof. part.
Tactics (and the means to glue them together) are a metalanguage called Ltac, because they are used to produce terms of another language, called Gallina, which is the specification language of Coq.
For example, forall x y : N, plus x y = plus y x is an instance of Gallina sentence as well as the body of the plus function. To obtain the term attached to plus_comm use the Print command:
Print plus_comm.
plus_comm =
fun x y : N =>
N_ind (fun x0 : N => plus x0 y = plus y x0)
(eq_ind_r (fun n : N => y = n) eq_refl (plus_0 y))
(fun (x0 : N) (IHx : plus x0 y = plus y x0) =>
eq_ind_r (fun n : N => S n = plus y (S x0))
(eq_ind_r (fun n : N => S (plus y x0) = n) eq_refl (plus_S y x0))
IHx) x
: forall x y : N, plus x y = plus y x
It is not an easy read, but with some experience you'll be able to understand it.
Incidentally, here is how we could have proved the lemma not using tactics:
Definition plus_comm : forall x y : N, plus x y = plus y x :=
fix IH (x y : N) :=
match x return plus x y = plus y x with
| O => eq_sym (plus_0 y)
| S x => eq_ind _ (fun p => S p = plus y (S x)) (eq_sym (plus_S y x)) _ (eq_sym (IH x y))
end.
To explain a few things: fix is the means of defining recursive functions, eq_sym is used to change x = y into y = x, and eq_ind corresponds to the rewrite tactic.