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

doc-src/TutorialI/Types/Pairs.thy

author | nipkow |

Wed Dec 06 13:22:58 2000 +0100 (2000-12-06) | |

changeset 10608 | 620647438780 |

parent 10560 | f4da791d4850 |

child 10654 | 458068404143 |

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

*** empty log message ***

1 (*<*)theory Pairs = Main:(*>*)

3 section{*Pairs*}

5 text{*\label{sec:products}

6 Pairs were already introduced in \S\ref{sec:pairs}, but only with a minimal

7 repertoire of operations: pairing and the two projections @{term fst} and

8 @{term snd}. In any nontrivial application of pairs you will find that this

9 quickly leads to unreadable formulae involvings nests of projections. This

10 section is concerned with introducing some syntactic sugar to overcome this

11 problem: pattern matching with tuples.

12 *}

14 subsection{*Pattern matching with tuples*}

16 text{*

17 It is possible to use (nested) tuples as patterns in $\lambda$-abstractions,

18 for example @{text"\<lambda>(x,y,z).x+y+z"} and @{text"\<lambda>((x,y),z).x+y+z"}. In fact,

19 tuple patterns can be used in most variable binding constructs. Here are

20 some typical examples:

21 \begin{quote}

22 @{term"let (x,y) = f z in (y,x)"}\\

23 @{term"case xs of [] => 0 | (x,y)#zs => x+y"}\\

24 @{text"\<forall>(x,y)\<in>A. x=y"}\\

25 @{text"{(x,y). x=y}"}\\

26 @{term"\<Union>(x,y)\<in>A. {x+y}"}

27 \end{quote}

28 *}

30 text{*

31 The intuitive meaning of this notations should be pretty obvious.

32 Unfortunately, we need to know in more detail what the notation really stands

33 for once we have to reason about it. The fact of the matter is that abstraction

34 over pairs and tuples is merely a convenient shorthand for a more complex

35 internal representation. Thus the internal and external form of a term may

36 differ, which can affect proofs. If you want to avoid this complication,

37 stick to @{term fst} and @{term snd} and write @{term"%p. fst p + snd p"}

38 instead of @{text"\<lambda>(x,y). x+y"} (which denote the same function but are quite

39 different terms).

41 Internally, @{term"%(x,y). t"} becomes @{text"split (\<lambda>x y. t)"}, where

42 @{term split} is the uncurrying function of type @{text"('a \<Rightarrow> 'b

43 \<Rightarrow> 'c) \<Rightarrow> 'a \<times> 'b \<Rightarrow> 'c"} defined as

44 \begin{center}

45 @{thm split_def}

46 \hfill(@{thm[source]split_def})

47 \end{center}

48 Pattern matching in

49 other variable binding constructs is translated similarly. Thus we need to

50 understand how to reason about such constructs.

51 *}

53 subsection{*Theorem proving*}

55 text{*

56 The most obvious approach is the brute force expansion of @{term split}:

57 *}

59 lemma "(\<lambda>(x,y).x) p = fst p"

60 by(simp add:split_def)

62 text{* This works well if rewriting with @{thm[source]split_def} finishes the

63 proof, as in the above lemma. But if it doesn't, you end up with exactly what

64 we are trying to avoid: nests of @{term fst} and @{term snd}. Thus this

65 approach is neither elegant nor very practical in large examples, although it

66 can be effective in small ones.

68 If we step back and ponder why the above lemma presented a problem in the

69 first place, we quickly realize that what we would like is to replace @{term

70 p} with some concrete pair @{term"(a,b)"}, in which case both sides of the

71 equation would simplify to @{term a} because of the simplification rules

72 @{thm Product_Type.split[no_vars]} and @{thm fst_conv[no_vars]}. This is the

73 key problem one faces when reasoning about pattern matching with pairs: how to

74 convert some atomic term into a pair.

76 In case of a subterm of the form @{term"split f p"} this is easy: the split

77 rule @{thm[source]split_split} replaces @{term p} by a pair:

78 *}

80 lemma "(\<lambda>(x,y).y) p = snd p"

81 apply(simp only: split:split_split);

83 txt{*

84 @{subgoals[display,indent=0]}

85 This subgoal is easily proved by simplification. The @{text"only:"} above

86 merely serves to show the effect of splitting and to avoid solving the goal

87 outright.

89 Let us look at a second example:

90 *}

92 (*<*)by simp(*>*)

93 lemma "let (x,y) = p in fst p = x";

94 apply(simp only:Let_def)

96 txt{*

97 @{subgoals[display,indent=0]}

98 A paired @{text let} reduces to a paired $\lambda$-abstraction, which

99 can be split as above. The same is true for paired set comprehension:

100 *}

102 (*<*)by(simp split:split_split)(*>*)

103 lemma "p \<in> {(x,y). x=y} \<longrightarrow> fst p = snd p"

104 apply simp

106 txt{*

107 @{subgoals[display,indent=0]}

108 Again, simplification produces a term suitable for @{thm[source]split_split}

109 as above. If you are worried about the funny form of the premise:

110 @{term"split (op =)"} is the same as @{text"\<lambda>(x,y). x=y"}.

111 The same procedure works for

112 *}

114 (*<*)by(simp split:split_split)(*>*)

115 lemma "p \<in> {(x,y). x=y} \<Longrightarrow> fst p = snd p"

117 txt{*\noindent

118 except that we now have to use @{thm[source]split_split_asm}, because

119 @{term split} occurs in the assumptions.

121 However, splitting @{term split} is not always a solution, as no @{term split}

122 may be present in the goal. Consider the following function:

123 *}

125 (*<*)by(simp split:split_split_asm)(*>*)

126 consts swap :: "'a \<times> 'b \<Rightarrow> 'b \<times> 'a"

127 primrec

128 "swap (x,y) = (y,x)"

130 text{*\noindent

131 Note that the above \isacommand{primrec} definition is admissible

132 because @{text"\<times>"} is a datatype. When we now try to prove

133 *}

135 lemma "swap(swap p) = p"

137 txt{*\noindent

138 simplification will do nothing, because the defining equation for @{term swap}

139 expects a pair. Again, we need to turn @{term p} into a pair first, but this

140 time there is no @{term split} in sight. In this case the only thing we can do

141 is to split the term by hand:

142 *}

143 apply(case_tac p)

145 txt{*\noindent

146 @{subgoals[display,indent=0]}

147 Again, @{text case_tac} is applicable because @{text"\<times>"} is a datatype.

148 The subgoal is easily proved by @{text simp}.

150 In case the term to be split is a quantified variable, there are more options.

151 You can split \emph{all} @{text"\<And>"}-quantified variables in a goal

152 with the rewrite rule @{thm[source]split_paired_all}:

153 *}

155 (*<*)by simp(*>*)

156 lemma "\<And>p q. swap(swap p) = q \<longrightarrow> p = q"

157 apply(simp only:split_paired_all)

159 txt{*\noindent

160 @{subgoals[display,indent=0]}

161 *}

163 apply simp

164 done

166 text{*\noindent

167 Note that we have intentionally included only @{thm[source]split_paired_all}

168 in the first simplification step. This time the reason was not merely

169 pedagogical:

170 @{thm[source]split_paired_all} may interfere with certain congruence

171 rules of the simplifier, i.e.

172 *}

174 (*<*)

175 lemma "\<And>p q. swap(swap p) = q \<longrightarrow> p = q"

176 (*>*)

177 apply(simp add:split_paired_all)

178 (*<*)done(*>*)

179 text{*\noindent

180 may fail (here it does not) where the above two stages succeed.

182 Finally, all @{text"\<forall>"} and @{text"\<exists>"}-quantified variables are split

183 automatically by the simplifier:

184 *}

186 lemma "\<forall>p. \<exists>q. swap p = swap q"

187 apply simp;

188 done

190 text{*\noindent

191 In case you would like to turn off this automatic splitting, just disable the

192 responsible simplification rules:

193 \begin{center}

194 @{thm split_paired_All}

195 \hfill

196 (@{thm[source]split_paired_All})\\

197 @{thm split_paired_Ex}

198 \hfill

199 (@{thm[source]split_paired_Ex})

200 \end{center}

201 *}

202 (*<*)

203 end

204 (*>*)