summary |
shortlog |
changelog |
graph |
tags |
branches |
files |
changeset |
file |
revisions |
annotate |
diff |
raw

src/HOL/Isar_Examples/Basic_Logic.thy

author | hoelzl |

Tue Mar 26 12:20:58 2013 +0100 (2013-03-26) | |

changeset 51526 | 155263089e7b |

parent 37671 | fa53d267dab3 |

child 55640 | abc140f21caa |

permissions | -rw-r--r-- |

move SEQ.thy and Lim.thy to Limits.thy

1 (* Title: HOL/Isar_Examples/Basic_Logic.thy

2 Author: Markus Wenzel, TU Muenchen

4 Basic propositional and quantifier reasoning.

5 *)

7 header {* Basic logical reasoning *}

9 theory Basic_Logic

10 imports Main

11 begin

14 subsection {* Pure backward reasoning *}

16 text {* In order to get a first idea of how Isabelle/Isar proof

17 documents may look like, we consider the propositions @{text I},

18 @{text K}, and @{text S}. The following (rather explicit) proofs

19 should require little extra explanations. *}

21 lemma I: "A --> A"

22 proof

23 assume A

24 show A by fact

25 qed

27 lemma K: "A --> B --> A"

28 proof

29 assume A

30 show "B --> A"

31 proof

32 show A by fact

33 qed

34 qed

36 lemma S: "(A --> B --> C) --> (A --> B) --> A --> C"

37 proof

38 assume "A --> B --> C"

39 show "(A --> B) --> A --> C"

40 proof

41 assume "A --> B"

42 show "A --> C"

43 proof

44 assume A

45 show C

46 proof (rule mp)

47 show "B --> C" by (rule mp) fact+

48 show B by (rule mp) fact+

49 qed

50 qed

51 qed

52 qed

54 text {* Isar provides several ways to fine-tune the reasoning,

55 avoiding excessive detail. Several abbreviated language elements

56 are available, enabling the writer to express proofs in a more

57 concise way, even without referring to any automated proof tools

58 yet.

60 First of all, proof by assumption may be abbreviated as a single

61 dot. *}

63 lemma "A --> A"

64 proof

65 assume A

66 show A by fact+

67 qed

69 text {* In fact, concluding any (sub-)proof already involves solving

70 any remaining goals by assumption\footnote{This is not a completely

71 trivial operation, as proof by assumption may involve full

72 higher-order unification.}. Thus we may skip the rather vacuous

73 body of the above proof as well. *}

75 lemma "A --> A"

76 proof

77 qed

79 text {* Note that the \isacommand{proof} command refers to the @{text

80 rule} method (without arguments) by default. Thus it implicitly

81 applies a single rule, as determined from the syntactic form of the

82 statements involved. The \isacommand{by} command abbreviates any

83 proof with empty body, so the proof may be further pruned. *}

85 lemma "A --> A"

86 by rule

88 text {* Proof by a single rule may be abbreviated as double-dot. *}

90 lemma "A --> A" ..

92 text {* Thus we have arrived at an adequate representation of the

93 proof of a tautology that holds by a single standard

94 rule.\footnote{Apparently, the rule here is implication

95 introduction.} *}

97 text {* Let us also reconsider @{text K}. Its statement is composed

98 of iterated connectives. Basic decomposition is by a single rule at

99 a time, which is why our first version above was by nesting two

100 proofs.

102 The @{text intro} proof method repeatedly decomposes a goal's

103 conclusion.\footnote{The dual method is @{text elim}, acting on a

104 goal's premises.} *}

106 lemma "A --> B --> A"

107 proof (intro impI)

108 assume A

109 show A by fact

110 qed

112 text {* Again, the body may be collapsed. *}

114 lemma "A --> B --> A"

115 by (intro impI)

117 text {* Just like @{text rule}, the @{text intro} and @{text elim}

118 proof methods pick standard structural rules, in case no explicit

119 arguments are given. While implicit rules are usually just fine for

120 single rule application, this may go too far with iteration. Thus

121 in practice, @{text intro} and @{text elim} would be typically

122 restricted to certain structures by giving a few rules only, e.g.\

123 \isacommand{proof}~@{text "(intro impI allI)"} to strip implications

124 and universal quantifiers.

126 Such well-tuned iterated decomposition of certain structures is the

127 prime application of @{text intro} and @{text elim}. In contrast,

128 terminal steps that solve a goal completely are usually performed by

129 actual automated proof methods (such as \isacommand{by}~@{text

130 blast}. *}

133 subsection {* Variations of backward vs.\ forward reasoning *}

135 text {* Certainly, any proof may be performed in backward-style only.

136 On the other hand, small steps of reasoning are often more naturally

137 expressed in forward-style. Isar supports both backward and forward

138 reasoning as a first-class concept. In order to demonstrate the

139 difference, we consider several proofs of @{text "A \<and> B \<longrightarrow> B \<and> A"}.

141 The first version is purely backward. *}

143 lemma "A & B --> B & A"

144 proof

145 assume "A & B"

146 show "B & A"

147 proof

148 show B by (rule conjunct2) fact

149 show A by (rule conjunct1) fact

150 qed

151 qed

153 text {* Above, the @{text "conjunct_1/2"} projection rules had to be

154 named explicitly, since the goals @{text B} and @{text A} did not

155 provide any structural clue. This may be avoided using

156 \isacommand{from} to focus on the @{text "A \<and> B"} assumption as the

157 current facts, enabling the use of double-dot proofs. Note that

158 \isacommand{from} already does forward-chaining, involving the

159 @{text conjE} rule here. *}

161 lemma "A & B --> B & A"

162 proof

163 assume "A & B"

164 show "B & A"

165 proof

166 from `A & B` show B ..

167 from `A & B` show A ..

168 qed

169 qed

171 text {* In the next version, we move the forward step one level

172 upwards. Forward-chaining from the most recent facts is indicated

173 by the \isacommand{then} command. Thus the proof of @{text "B \<and> A"}

174 from @{text "A \<and> B"} actually becomes an elimination, rather than an

175 introduction. The resulting proof structure directly corresponds to

176 that of the @{text conjE} rule, including the repeated goal

177 proposition that is abbreviated as @{text ?thesis} below. *}

179 lemma "A & B --> B & A"

180 proof

181 assume "A & B"

182 then show "B & A"

183 proof -- {* rule @{text conjE} of @{text "A \<and> B"} *}

184 assume B A

185 then show ?thesis .. -- {* rule @{text conjI} of @{text "B \<and> A"} *}

186 qed

187 qed

189 text {* In the subsequent version we flatten the structure of the main

190 body by doing forward reasoning all the time. Only the outermost

191 decomposition step is left as backward. *}

193 lemma "A & B --> B & A"

194 proof

195 assume "A & B"

196 from `A & B` have A ..

197 from `A & B` have B ..

198 from `B` `A` show "B & A" ..

199 qed

201 text {* We can still push forward-reasoning a bit further, even at the

202 risk of getting ridiculous. Note that we force the initial proof

203 step to do nothing here, by referring to the ``-'' proof method. *}

205 lemma "A & B --> B & A"

206 proof -

207 {

208 assume "A & B"

209 from `A & B` have A ..

210 from `A & B` have B ..

211 from `B` `A` have "B & A" ..

212 }

213 then show ?thesis .. -- {* rule @{text impI} *}

214 qed

216 text {* \medskip With these examples we have shifted through a whole

217 range from purely backward to purely forward reasoning. Apparently,

218 in the extreme ends we get slightly ill-structured proofs, which

219 also require much explicit naming of either rules (backward) or

220 local facts (forward).

222 The general lesson learned here is that good proof style would

223 achieve just the \emph{right} balance of top-down backward

224 decomposition, and bottom-up forward composition. In general, there

225 is no single best way to arrange some pieces of formal reasoning, of

226 course. Depending on the actual applications, the intended audience

227 etc., rules (and methods) on the one hand vs.\ facts on the other

228 hand have to be emphasized in an appropriate way. This requires the

229 proof writer to develop good taste, and some practice, of course. *}

231 text {* For our example the most appropriate way of reasoning is

232 probably the middle one, with conjunction introduction done after

233 elimination. *}

235 lemma "A & B --> B & A"

236 proof

237 assume "A & B"

238 then show "B & A"

239 proof

240 assume B A

241 then show ?thesis ..

242 qed

243 qed

247 subsection {* A few examples from ``Introduction to Isabelle'' *}

249 text {* We rephrase some of the basic reasoning examples of

250 \cite{isabelle-intro}, using HOL rather than FOL. *}

253 subsubsection {* A propositional proof *}

255 text {* We consider the proposition @{text "P \<or> P \<longrightarrow> P"}. The proof

256 below involves forward-chaining from @{text "P \<or> P"}, followed by an

257 explicit case-analysis on the two \emph{identical} cases. *}

259 lemma "P | P --> P"

260 proof

261 assume "P | P"

262 then show P

263 proof -- {*

264 rule @{text disjE}: \smash{$\infer{C}{A \disj B & \infer*{C}{[A]} & \infer*{C}{[B]}}$}

265 *}

266 assume P show P by fact

267 next

268 assume P show P by fact

269 qed

270 qed

272 text {* Case splits are \emph{not} hardwired into the Isar language as

273 a special feature. The \isacommand{next} command used to separate

274 the cases above is just a short form of managing block structure.

276 \medskip In general, applying proof methods may split up a goal into

277 separate ``cases'', i.e.\ new subgoals with individual local

278 assumptions. The corresponding proof text typically mimics this by

279 establishing results in appropriate contexts, separated by blocks.

281 In order to avoid too much explicit parentheses, the Isar system

282 implicitly opens an additional block for any new goal, the

283 \isacommand{next} statement then closes one block level, opening a

284 new one. The resulting behavior is what one would expect from

285 separating cases, only that it is more flexible. E.g.\ an induction

286 base case (which does not introduce local assumptions) would

287 \emph{not} require \isacommand{next} to separate the subsequent step

288 case.

290 \medskip In our example the situation is even simpler, since the two

291 cases actually coincide. Consequently the proof may be rephrased as

292 follows. *}

294 lemma "P | P --> P"

295 proof

296 assume "P | P"

297 then show P

298 proof

299 assume P

300 show P by fact

301 show P by fact

302 qed

303 qed

305 text {* Again, the rather vacuous body of the proof may be collapsed.

306 Thus the case analysis degenerates into two assumption steps, which

307 are implicitly performed when concluding the single rule step of the

308 double-dot proof as follows. *}

310 lemma "P | P --> P"

311 proof

312 assume "P | P"

313 then show P ..

314 qed

317 subsubsection {* A quantifier proof *}

319 text {* To illustrate quantifier reasoning, let us prove @{text

320 "(\<exists>x. P (f x)) \<longrightarrow> (\<exists>y. P y)"}. Informally, this holds because any

321 @{text a} with @{text "P (f a)"} may be taken as a witness for the

322 second existential statement.

324 The first proof is rather verbose, exhibiting quite a lot of

325 (redundant) detail. It gives explicit rules, even with some

326 instantiation. Furthermore, we encounter two new language elements:

327 the \isacommand{fix} command augments the context by some new

328 ``arbitrary, but fixed'' element; the \isacommand{is} annotation

329 binds term abbreviations by higher-order pattern matching. *}

331 lemma "(EX x. P (f x)) --> (EX y. P y)"

332 proof

333 assume "EX x. P (f x)"

334 then show "EX y. P y"

335 proof (rule exE) -- {*

336 rule @{text exE}: \smash{$\infer{B}{\ex x A(x) & \infer*{B}{[A(x)]_x}}$}

337 *}

338 fix a

339 assume "P (f a)" (is "P ?witness")

340 then show ?thesis by (rule exI [of P ?witness])

341 qed

342 qed

344 text {* While explicit rule instantiation may occasionally improve

345 readability of certain aspects of reasoning, it is usually quite

346 redundant. Above, the basic proof outline gives already enough

347 structural clues for the system to infer both the rules and their

348 instances (by higher-order unification). Thus we may as well prune

349 the text as follows. *}

351 lemma "(EX x. P (f x)) --> (EX y. P y)"

352 proof

353 assume "EX x. P (f x)"

354 then show "EX y. P y"

355 proof

356 fix a

357 assume "P (f a)"

358 then show ?thesis ..

359 qed

360 qed

362 text {* Explicit @{text \<exists>}-elimination as seen above can become quite

363 cumbersome in practice. The derived Isar language element

364 ``\isakeyword{obtain}'' provides a more handsome way to do

365 generalized existence reasoning. *}

367 lemma "(EX x. P (f x)) --> (EX y. P y)"

368 proof

369 assume "EX x. P (f x)"

370 then obtain a where "P (f a)" ..

371 then show "EX y. P y" ..

372 qed

374 text {* Technically, \isakeyword{obtain} is similar to

375 \isakeyword{fix} and \isakeyword{assume} together with a soundness

376 proof of the elimination involved. Thus it behaves similar to any

377 other forward proof element. Also note that due to the nature of

378 general existence reasoning involved here, any result exported from

379 the context of an \isakeyword{obtain} statement may \emph{not} refer

380 to the parameters introduced there. *}

383 subsubsection {* Deriving rules in Isabelle *}

385 text {* We derive the conjunction elimination rule from the

386 corresponding projections. The proof is quite straight-forward,

387 since Isabelle/Isar supports non-atomic goals and assumptions fully

388 transparently. *}

390 theorem conjE: "A & B ==> (A ==> B ==> C) ==> C"

391 proof -

392 assume "A & B"

393 assume r: "A ==> B ==> C"

394 show C

395 proof (rule r)

396 show A by (rule conjunct1) fact

397 show B by (rule conjunct2) fact

398 qed

399 qed

401 end