src/HOL/Isar_examples/Summation.thy

added hearder lines and deleted some redundant material

(*  Title:      HOL/Isar_examples/Summation.thy
    ID:         $Id$
    Author:     Markus Wenzel
*)

header {* Summing natural numbers *}

theory Summation
imports Main
begin

declare setsum_op_ivl_Suc [simp] setsum_cl_ivl_Suc [simp]

text_raw {*
 \footnote{This example is somewhat reminiscent of the
 \url{http://isabelle.in.tum.de/library/HOL/ex/NatSum.html}, which is
 discussed in \cite{isabelle-ref} in the context of permutative
 rewrite rules and ordered rewriting.}
*}

text {*
 Subsequently, we prove some summation laws of natural numbers
 (including odds, squares, and cubes).  These examples demonstrate how
 plain natural deduction (including induction) may be combined with
 calculational proof.
*}


subsection {* Summation laws *}

text {*
 The sum of natural numbers $0 + \cdots + n$ equals $n \times (n +
 1)/2$.  Avoiding formal reasoning about division we prove this
 equation multiplied by $2$.
*}

theorem sum_of_naturals:
  "2 * (\<Sum>i::nat=0..n. i) = n * (n + 1)"
  (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
proof (induct n)
  show "?P 0" by simp
next
  fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 2 * (n + 1)" by simp
  also assume "?S n = n * (n + 1)"
  also have "... + 2 * (n + 1) = (n + 1) * (n + 2)" by simp
  finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
qed

text {*
 The above proof is a typical instance of mathematical induction.  The
 main statement is viewed as some $\var{P} \ap n$ that is split by the
 induction method into base case $\var{P} \ap 0$, and step case
 $\var{P} \ap n \Impl \var{P} \ap (\idt{Suc} \ap n)$ for arbitrary $n$.

 The step case is established by a short calculation in forward
 manner.  Starting from the left-hand side $\var{S} \ap (n + 1)$ of
 the thesis, the final result is achieved by transformations involving
 basic arithmetic reasoning (using the Simplifier).  The main point is
 where the induction hypothesis $\var{S} \ap n = n \times (n + 1)$ is
 introduced in order to replace a certain subterm.  So the
 ``transitivity'' rule involved here is actual \emph{substitution}.
 Also note how the occurrence of ``\dots'' in the subsequent step
 documents the position where the right-hand side of the hypothesis
 got filled in.

 \medskip A further notable point here is integration of calculations
 with plain natural deduction.  This works so well in Isar for two
 reasons.
 \begin{enumerate}

 \item Facts involved in \isakeyword{also}~/ \isakeyword{finally}
 calculational chains may be just anything.  There is nothing special
 about \isakeyword{have}, so the natural deduction element
 \isakeyword{assume} works just as well.

 \item There are two \emph{separate} primitives for building natural
 deduction contexts: \isakeyword{fix}~$x$ and \isakeyword{assume}~$A$.
 Thus it is possible to start reasoning with some new ``arbitrary, but
 fixed'' elements before bringing in the actual assumption.  In
 contrast, natural deduction is occasionally formalized with basic
 context elements of the form $x:A$ instead.

 \end{enumerate}
*}

text {*
 \medskip We derive further summation laws for odds, squares, and
 cubes as follows.  The basic technique of induction plus calculation
 is the same as before.
*}

theorem sum_of_odds:
  "(\<Sum>i::nat=0..<n. 2 * i + 1) = n^Suc (Suc 0)"
  (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
proof (induct n)
  show "?P 0" by simp
next
  fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 2 * n + 1" by simp
  also assume "?S n = n^Suc (Suc 0)"
  also have "... + 2 * n + 1 = (n + 1)^Suc (Suc 0)" by simp
  finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
qed

text {*
 Subsequently we require some additional tweaking of Isabelle built-in
 arithmetic simplifications, such as bringing in distributivity by
 hand.
*}

lemmas distrib = add_mult_distrib add_mult_distrib2

theorem sum_of_squares:
  "6 * (\<Sum>i::nat=0..n. i^Suc (Suc 0)) = n * (n + 1) * (2 * n + 1)"
  (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
proof (induct n)
  show "?P 0" by simp
next
  fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 6 * (n + 1)^Suc (Suc 0)" by (simp add: distrib)
  also assume "?S n = n * (n + 1) * (2 * n + 1)"
  also have "... + 6 * (n + 1)^Suc (Suc 0) =
    (n + 1) * (n + 2) * (2 * (n + 1) + 1)" by (simp add: distrib)
  finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
qed

theorem sum_of_cubes:
  "4 * (\<Sum>i::nat=0..n. i^3) = (n * (n + 1))^Suc (Suc 0)"
  (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
proof (induct n)
  show "?P 0" by (simp add: power_eq_if)
next
  fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 4 * (n + 1)^3"
    by (simp add: power_eq_if distrib)
  also assume "?S n = (n * (n + 1))^Suc (Suc 0)"
  also have "... + 4 * (n + 1)^3 = ((n + 1) * ((n + 1) + 1))^Suc (Suc 0)"
    by (simp add: power_eq_if distrib)
  finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
qed

text {*
 Comparing these examples with the tactic script version
 \url{http://isabelle.in.tum.de/library/HOL/ex/NatSum.html}, we note
 an important difference of how induction vs.\ simplification is
 applied.  While \cite[\S10]{isabelle-ref} advises for these examples
 that ``induction should not be applied until the goal is in the
 simplest form'' this would be a very bad idea in our setting.

 Simplification normalizes all arithmetic expressions involved,
 producing huge intermediate goals.  With applying induction
 afterwards, the Isar proof text would have to reflect the emerging
 configuration by appropriate sub-proofs.  This would result in badly
 structured, low-level technical reasoning, without any good idea of
 the actual point.

 \medskip As a general rule of good proof style, automatic methods
 such as $\idt{simp}$ or $\idt{auto}$ should normally be never used as
 initial proof methods, but only as terminal ones, solving certain
 goals completely.
*}

end