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.
Related
Coq's standard libraries give the Peano natural numbers and addition:
Inductive nat : Set :=
| O : nat
| S : nat -> nat.
Fixpoint add n m :=
match n with
| 0 => m
| S p => S (add p m)
end.
I am curious if I change the fix_definition of addition like
Fixpoint add n m :=
match n with
| 0 => m
| S p => add p (S m)
end.
Is the new addition equivalent to the old one? I tried to prove their equivalence by proving forall n m, add (S n) m = S (add n m) but failed.
In order to proof your helper lemma, you need to be careful what to introduce. If you don't introduce m, you get a more general induction hypothesis as in:
Require Import Nat.
Print add.
Fixpoint my_add n m :=
match n with
| 0 => m
| S p => my_add p (S m)
end.
Lemma my_add_S_r: forall n m, my_add n (S m) = S (my_add n m).
Proof.
(* Note: don't introduce m here - you get a more general induction hypothesis this way *)
intros n.
induction n.
- intros; reflexivity.
- intros; cbn. rewrite IHn. reflexivity.
Qed.
Lemma my_add_equiv: forall n m, add n m = my_add n m.
intros.
induction n.
- reflexivity.
- cbn. rewrite my_add_S_r. rewrite IHn. reflexivity.
Qed.
Yes both additions are equivalent, you can prove it using the lemma plus_n_Sm : forall n m : nat, S (n + m) = n + S m from the standard library (found using Search "+" (S _).) and an adequate induction hypothesis (for instance P(n) := forall m, n + m = add n m).
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 am stuck on a goal.
Assume we have the following definition:
Fixpoint iota (n : nat) : list nat :=
match n with
| 0 => []
| S k => iota k ++ [k]
end.
And we want to prove:
Theorem t1 : forall n, In n (iota n) -> False.
So far, I have managed to the following:
Theorem t1 : forall n, In n (iota n) -> False.
Proof.
intros.
induction n.
- cbn in H. contradiction.
- cbn in H. apply app_split in H.
Focus 2. unfold not. intros.
unfold In in H0. destruct H0. assert (~(n = S n)) by now apply s_inj.
contradiction.
apply H0.
apply IHn.
I used these two lemmas, proofs omitted:
Axiom app_split : forall A x (l l2 : list A), In x (l ++ l2) -> not (In x l2) -> In x l.
Axiom s_inj : forall n, ~(n = S n).
However, I am completely stuck, I need to somehow show that: In n (iota n) assuming In (S n) (iota n).
As you've observed the fact that the n in In n and the one in iota n are in lockstep in your statement makes the induction hypothesis hard to invoke (if not completely useless).
The trick here is to prove a more general statement than the one you are actually interested in which breaks this dependency between the two ns. I would suggest:
Theorem t : forall n k, n <= k -> In k (iota n) -> False.
from which you can derive t1 as a corollary:
Corollary t1 : forall n, In n (iota n) -> False.
intro n; apply (t n n); reflexivity.
Qed.
If you want to peek at the proof of t, you can have a look at this self-contained gist
Basically, I would like to prove that following result:
Lemma nat_ind_2 (P: nat -> Prop): P 0 -> P 1 -> (forall n, P n -> P (2+n)) ->
forall n, P n.
that is the recurrence scheme of the so called double induction.
I tried to prove it applying induction two times, but I am not sure that I will get anywhere this way. Indeed, I got stuck at that point:
Proof.
intros. elim n.
exact H.
intros. elim n0.
exact H0.
intros. apply (H1 n1).
Actually, there's a much simpler solution. A fix allows recursion (aka induction) on any subterm while nat_rect only allows recursion on the immediate subterm of a nat. nat_rect itself is defined with a fix, and nat_ind is just a special case of nat_rect.
Definition nat_rect_2 (P : nat -> Type) (f1 : P 0) (f2 : P 1)
(f3 : forall n, P n -> P (S (S n))) : forall n, P n :=
fix nat_rect_2 n :=
match n with
| 0 => f1
| 1 => f2
| S (S m) => f3 m (nat_rect_2 m)
end.
#Rui's fix solution is quite general. Here is an alternative solution that uses the following observation: when proving this lemma mentally, you use somewhat stronger induction principle. For example if P holds for two consecutive numbers it becomes easy to make it hold for the next pair:
Lemma nat_ind_2 (P: nat -> Prop): P 0 -> P 1 -> (forall n, P n -> P (2+n)) ->
forall n, P n.
Proof.
intros P0 P1 H.
assert (G: forall n, P n /\ P (S n)).
induction n as [ | n [Pn PSn]]; auto.
split; try apply H; auto.
apply G.
Qed.
Here G proves something redundant, yet calling the induction tactic for it brings sufficient context for near-trivial proof.
I think well-founded induction is necessary for that.
Require Import Arith.
Theorem nat_rect_3 : forall P,
(forall n1, (forall n2, n2 < n1 -> P n2) -> P n1) ->
forall n, P n.
Proof.
intros P H1 n1.
apply Acc_rect with (R := lt).
info_eauto.
induction n1 as [| n1 H2].
apply Acc_intro. intros n2 H3. Check lt_n_0. Check (lt_n_0 _). Check (lt_n_0 _ H3). destruct (lt_n_0 _ H3).
destruct H2 as [H2]. apply Acc_intro. intros n2 H3. apply Acc_intro. intros n3 H4. apply H2. info_eauto with *.
Defined.
Theorem nat_rect_2 : forall P,
P 0 ->
P 1 ->
(forall n, P n -> P (S (S n))) ->
forall n, P n.
Proof.
intros ? H1 H2 H3.
induction n as [n H4] using nat_rect_3.
destruct n as [| [| n]].
info_eauto with *.
info_eauto with *.
info_eauto with *.
Defined.
A fun observation: Rui's answer is the fixpoint translation of NonNumeric's answer, which is the generalization of user1861759's answer for any n, not just n = 2.
In other words, these answers are all fine, and actually deeply related to one another, by the correspondence between terminating fixpoints and generalized induction.
I have a function max:
Fixpoint max (n : nat) (m : nat) : nat :=
match n, m with
| O, O => O
| O, S x => S x
| S x, O => S x
| S x, S y => S (max x y)
end.
and a proof of the commutativity of max as follows:
Theorem max_comm :
forall n m : nat, max n m = max m n.
Proof.
intros n m.
induction n as [|n'];
induction m as [|m'];
simpl; trivial.
(* Qed. *)
This leaves off at S (max n' m') = S (max m' n'), which seems correct, and given the base case has already been proven, seems like one should be able to tell coq "just use the recursion!". However, I cannot figure out how to do it. Any help?
The problem is you introduce variable m before doing induction on variable n, and that makes the induction hypothesis less general. Try this instead.
intro n; induction n as [| n' IHn'];
intro m; destruct m as [| m'];
simpl; try (rewrite IHn'); trivial.