nipkow@10225
|
1 |
%
|
nipkow@10225
|
2 |
\begin{isabellebody}%
|
nipkow@10225
|
3 |
\def\isabellecontext{Star}%
|
nipkow@10225
|
4 |
%
|
wenzelm@10395
|
5 |
\isamarkupsection{The reflexive transitive closure%
|
wenzelm@10395
|
6 |
}
|
nipkow@10225
|
7 |
%
|
nipkow@10225
|
8 |
\begin{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
9 |
\label{sec:rtc}
|
nipkow@10242
|
10 |
{\bf Say something about inductive relations as opposed to sets? Or has that
|
nipkow@10242
|
11 |
been said already? If not, explain induction!}
|
nipkow@10242
|
12 |
|
nipkow@10237
|
13 |
A perfect example of an inductive definition is the reflexive transitive
|
nipkow@10225
|
14 |
closure of a relation. This concept was already introduced in
|
nipkow@10396
|
15 |
\S\ref{sec:Relations}, where the operator \isa{{\isacharcircum}{\isacharasterisk}} was
|
nipkow@10396
|
16 |
defined as a least fixed point because
|
nipkow@10396
|
17 |
inductive definitions were not yet available. But now they are:%
|
nipkow@10225
|
18 |
\end{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
19 |
\isacommand{consts}\ rtc\ {\isacharcolon}{\isacharcolon}\ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}{\isacharprime}a\ {\isasymtimes}\ {\isacharprime}a{\isacharparenright}set\ {\isasymRightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isacharprime}a\ {\isasymtimes}\ {\isacharprime}a{\isacharparenright}set{\isachardoublequote}\ \ \ {\isacharparenleft}{\isachardoublequote}{\isacharunderscore}{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}\ {\isacharbrackleft}{\isadigit{1}}{\isadigit{0}}{\isadigit{0}}{\isadigit{0}}{\isacharbrackright}\ {\isadigit{9}}{\isadigit{9}}{\isadigit{9}}{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10225
|
20 |
\isacommand{inductive}\ {\isachardoublequote}r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10225
|
21 |
\isakeyword{intros}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
22 |
rtc{\isacharunderscore}refl{\isacharbrackleft}iff{\isacharbrackright}{\isacharcolon}\ \ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}x{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
23 |
rtc{\isacharunderscore}step{\isacharcolon}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isachardoublequote}{\isasymlbrakk}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymrbrakk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
24 |
\begin{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
25 |
\noindent
|
nipkow@10242
|
26 |
The function \isa{rtc} is annotated with concrete syntax: instead of
|
nipkow@10242
|
27 |
\isa{rtc\ r} we can read and write {term"r*"}. The actual definition
|
nipkow@10242
|
28 |
consists of two rules. Reflexivity is obvious and is immediately declared an
|
nipkow@10363
|
29 |
equivalence rule. Thus the automatic tools will apply it automatically. The
|
nipkow@10363
|
30 |
second rule, \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step}, says that we can always add one more
|
nipkow@10363
|
31 |
\isa{r}-step to the left. Although we could make \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step} an
|
nipkow@10242
|
32 |
introduction rule, this is dangerous: the recursion slows down and may
|
nipkow@10242
|
33 |
even kill the automatic tactics.
|
nipkow@10242
|
34 |
|
nipkow@10242
|
35 |
The above definition of the concept of reflexive transitive closure may
|
nipkow@10242
|
36 |
be sufficiently intuitive but it is certainly not the only possible one:
|
nipkow@10242
|
37 |
for a start, it does not even mention transitivity explicitly.
|
nipkow@10242
|
38 |
The rest of this section is devoted to proving that it is equivalent to
|
nipkow@10242
|
39 |
the ``standard'' definition. We start with a simple lemma:%
|
nipkow@10242
|
40 |
\end{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10225
|
41 |
\isacommand{lemma}\ {\isacharbrackleft}intro{\isacharbrackright}{\isacharcolon}\ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isacharcolon}\ r\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
42 |
\isacommand{by}{\isacharparenleft}blast\ intro{\isacharcolon}\ rtc{\isacharunderscore}step{\isacharparenright}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
43 |
\begin{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
44 |
\noindent
|
nipkow@10242
|
45 |
Although the lemma itself is an unremarkable consequence of the basic rules,
|
nipkow@10242
|
46 |
it has the advantage that it can be declared an introduction rule without the
|
nipkow@10242
|
47 |
danger of killing the automatic tactics because \isa{r{\isacharasterisk}} occurs only in
|
nipkow@10242
|
48 |
the conclusion and not in the premise. Thus some proofs that would otherwise
|
nipkow@10242
|
49 |
need \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step} can now be found automatically. The proof also
|
nipkow@10242
|
50 |
shows that \isa{blast} is quite able to handle \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step}. But
|
nipkow@10242
|
51 |
some of the other automatic tactics are more sensitive, and even \isa{blast} can be lead astray in the presence of large numbers of rules.
|
nipkow@10242
|
52 |
|
nipkow@10242
|
53 |
Let us now turn to transitivity. It should be a consequence of the definition.%
|
nipkow@10242
|
54 |
\end{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
55 |
\isacommand{lemma}\ rtc{\isacharunderscore}trans{\isacharcolon}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
56 |
\ \ {\isachardoublequote}{\isasymlbrakk}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymrbrakk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
57 |
\begin{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
58 |
\noindent
|
nipkow@10242
|
59 |
The proof starts canonically by rule induction:%
|
nipkow@10242
|
60 |
\end{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
61 |
\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ rtc{\isachardot}induct{\isacharparenright}%
|
nipkow@10363
|
62 |
\begin{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
63 |
\noindent
|
nipkow@10242
|
64 |
However, even the resulting base case is a problem
|
nipkow@10363
|
65 |
\begin{isabelle}%
|
nipkow@10363
|
66 |
\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
67 |
\end{isabelle}
|
nipkow@10242
|
68 |
and maybe not what you had expected. We have to abandon this proof attempt.
|
nipkow@10242
|
69 |
To understand what is going on,
|
nipkow@10242
|
70 |
let us look at the induction rule \isa{rtc{\isachardot}induct}:
|
nipkow@10242
|
71 |
\[ \frac{(x,y) \in r^* \qquad \bigwedge x.~P~x~x \quad \dots}{P~x~y} \]
|
nipkow@10242
|
72 |
When applying this rule, $x$ becomes \isa{x}, $y$ becomes
|
nipkow@10242
|
73 |
\isa{y} and $P~x~y$ becomes \isa{{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}}, thus
|
nipkow@10242
|
74 |
yielding the above subgoal. So what went wrong?
|
nipkow@10242
|
75 |
|
nipkow@10242
|
76 |
When looking at the instantiation of $P~x~y$ we see
|
nipkow@10242
|
77 |
that $P$ does not depend on its second parameter at
|
nipkow@10242
|
78 |
all. The reason is that in our original goal, of the pair \isa{{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ y{\isacharparenright}} only
|
nipkow@10242
|
79 |
\isa{x} appears also in the conclusion, but not \isa{y}. Thus our
|
nipkow@10242
|
80 |
induction statement is too weak. Fortunately, it can easily be strengthened:
|
nipkow@10242
|
81 |
transfer the additional premise \isa{{\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}} into the conclusion:%
|
nipkow@10363
|
82 |
\end{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
83 |
\isacommand{lemma}\ rtc{\isacharunderscore}trans{\isacharbrackleft}rule{\isacharunderscore}format{\isacharbrackright}{\isacharcolon}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
84 |
\ \ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
85 |
\begin{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
86 |
\noindent
|
nipkow@10242
|
87 |
This is not an obscure trick but a generally applicable heuristic:
|
nipkow@10242
|
88 |
\begin{quote}\em
|
nipkow@10242
|
89 |
Whe proving a statement by rule induction on $(x@1,\dots,x@n) \in R$,
|
nipkow@10242
|
90 |
pull all other premises containing any of the $x@i$ into the conclusion
|
nipkow@10242
|
91 |
using $\longrightarrow$.
|
nipkow@10242
|
92 |
\end{quote}
|
nipkow@10242
|
93 |
A similar heuristic for other kinds of inductions is formulated in
|
nipkow@10242
|
94 |
\S\ref{sec:ind-var-in-prems}. The \isa{rule{\isacharunderscore}format} directive turns
|
nipkow@10242
|
95 |
\isa{{\isasymlongrightarrow}} back into \isa{{\isasymLongrightarrow}}. Thus in the end we obtain the original
|
nipkow@10363
|
96 |
statement of our lemma.%
|
nipkow@10363
|
97 |
\end{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10363
|
98 |
\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ rtc{\isachardot}induct{\isacharparenright}%
|
nipkow@10363
|
99 |
\begin{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10363
|
100 |
\noindent
|
nipkow@10242
|
101 |
Now induction produces two subgoals which are both proved automatically:
|
nipkow@10363
|
102 |
\begin{isabelle}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
103 |
\ {\isadigit{1}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x{\isachardot}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
104 |
\ {\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}\ {\isasymAnd}x\ y\ za{\isachardot}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
105 |
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ za{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}za{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isasymrbrakk}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10363
|
106 |
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}za{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymlongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
107 |
\end{isabelle}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
108 |
\end{isamarkuptxt}%
|
nipkow@10225
|
109 |
\ \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
110 |
\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast\ intro{\isacharcolon}\ rtc{\isacharunderscore}step{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
111 |
\isacommand{done}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
112 |
\begin{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
113 |
Let us now prove that \isa{r{\isacharasterisk}} is really the reflexive transitive closure
|
nipkow@10242
|
114 |
of \isa{r}, i.e.\ the least reflexive and transitive
|
nipkow@10242
|
115 |
relation containing \isa{r}. The latter is easily formalized%
|
nipkow@10242
|
116 |
\end{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10237
|
117 |
\isacommand{consts}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ {\isacharcolon}{\isacharcolon}\ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}{\isacharprime}a\ {\isasymtimes}\ {\isacharprime}a{\isacharparenright}set\ {\isasymRightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}{\isacharprime}a\ {\isasymtimes}\ {\isacharprime}a{\isacharparenright}set{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
118 |
\isacommand{inductive}\ {\isachardoublequote}rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10225
|
119 |
\isakeyword{intros}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
120 |
{\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
121 |
{\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}x{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
122 |
{\isachardoublequote}{\isasymlbrakk}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r\ {\isasymrbrakk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r{\isachardoublequote}%
|
nipkow@10237
|
123 |
\begin{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
124 |
\noindent
|
nipkow@10242
|
125 |
and the equivalence of the two definitions is easily shown by the obvious rule
|
nipkow@10237
|
126 |
inductions:%
|
nipkow@10237
|
127 |
\end{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10237
|
128 |
\isacommand{lemma}\ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
129 |
\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}induct{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
130 |
\ \ \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
131 |
\ \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
132 |
\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast\ intro{\isacharcolon}\ rtc{\isacharunderscore}trans{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
133 |
\isacommand{done}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10225
|
134 |
\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
135 |
\isacommand{lemma}\ {\isachardoublequote}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}\ r{\isachardoublequote}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
136 |
\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}erule\ rtc{\isachardot}induct{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
137 |
\ \isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast\ intro{\isacharcolon}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}intros{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10237
|
138 |
\isacommand{apply}{\isacharparenleft}blast\ intro{\isacharcolon}\ rtc{\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}intros{\isacharparenright}\isanewline
|
nipkow@10242
|
139 |
\isacommand{done}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
140 |
\begin{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
141 |
So why did we start with the first definition? Because it is simpler. It
|
nipkow@10242
|
142 |
contains only two rules, and the single step rule is simpler than
|
nipkow@10242
|
143 |
transitivity. As a consequence, \isa{rtc{\isachardot}induct} is simpler than
|
nipkow@10242
|
144 |
\isa{rtc{\isadigit{2}}{\isachardot}induct}. Since inductive proofs are hard enough, we should
|
nipkow@10242
|
145 |
certainly pick the simplest induction schema available for any concept.
|
nipkow@10242
|
146 |
Hence \isa{rtc} is the definition of choice.
|
nipkow@10242
|
147 |
|
nipkow@10242
|
148 |
\begin{exercise}
|
nipkow@10242
|
149 |
Show that the converse of \isa{rtc{\isacharunderscore}step} also holds:
|
nipkow@10242
|
150 |
\begin{isabelle}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
151 |
\ \ \ \ \ {\isasymlbrakk}{\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ y{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}{\isacharsemicolon}\ {\isacharparenleft}y{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isasymrbrakk}\ {\isasymLongrightarrow}\ {\isacharparenleft}x{\isacharcomma}\ z{\isacharparenright}\ {\isasymin}\ r{\isacharasterisk}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
152 |
\end{isabelle}
|
nipkow@10242
|
153 |
\end{exercise}%
|
nipkow@10242
|
154 |
\end{isamarkuptext}%
|
nipkow@10225
|
155 |
\end{isabellebody}%
|
nipkow@10225
|
156 |
%%% Local Variables:
|
nipkow@10225
|
157 |
%%% mode: latex
|
nipkow@10225
|
158 |
%%% TeX-master: "root"
|
nipkow@10225
|
159 |
%%% End:
|