author | wenzelm |
Tue, 31 Jul 2007 21:19:18 +0200 | |
changeset 24097 | 86734ba03ca2 |
parent 23154 | 5126551e378b |
child 24830 | a7b3ab44d993 |
permissions | -rw-r--r-- |
9487 | 1 |
(* Title: FOL/FOL.thy |
2 |
ID: $Id$ |
|
3 |
Author: Lawrence C Paulson and Markus Wenzel |
|
11678 | 4 |
*) |
9487 | 5 |
|
11678 | 6 |
header {* Classical first-order logic *} |
4093 | 7 |
|
18456 | 8 |
theory FOL |
15481 | 9 |
imports IFOL |
23154 | 10 |
uses |
24097 | 11 |
"~~/src/Provers/classical.ML" |
12 |
"~~/src/Provers/blast.ML" |
|
13 |
"~~/src/Provers/clasimp.ML" |
|
23154 | 14 |
("cladata.ML") |
15 |
("blastdata.ML") |
|
16 |
("simpdata.ML") |
|
18456 | 17 |
begin |
9487 | 18 |
|
19 |
||
20 |
subsection {* The classical axiom *} |
|
4093 | 21 |
|
7355
4c43090659ca
proper bootstrap of IFOL/FOL theories and packages;
wenzelm
parents:
5887
diff
changeset
|
22 |
axioms |
4c43090659ca
proper bootstrap of IFOL/FOL theories and packages;
wenzelm
parents:
5887
diff
changeset
|
23 |
classical: "(~P ==> P) ==> P" |
4093 | 24 |
|
9487 | 25 |
|
11678 | 26 |
subsection {* Lemmas and proof tools *} |
9487 | 27 |
|
21539 | 28 |
lemma ccontr: "(\<not> P \<Longrightarrow> False) \<Longrightarrow> P" |
29 |
by (erule FalseE [THEN classical]) |
|
30 |
||
31 |
(*** Classical introduction rules for | and EX ***) |
|
32 |
||
33 |
lemma disjCI: "(~Q ==> P) ==> P|Q" |
|
34 |
apply (rule classical) |
|
35 |
apply (assumption | erule meta_mp | rule disjI1 notI)+ |
|
36 |
apply (erule notE disjI2)+ |
|
37 |
done |
|
38 |
||
39 |
(*introduction rule involving only EX*) |
|
40 |
lemma ex_classical: |
|
41 |
assumes r: "~(EX x. P(x)) ==> P(a)" |
|
42 |
shows "EX x. P(x)" |
|
43 |
apply (rule classical) |
|
44 |
apply (rule exI, erule r) |
|
45 |
done |
|
46 |
||
47 |
(*version of above, simplifying ~EX to ALL~ *) |
|
48 |
lemma exCI: |
|
49 |
assumes r: "ALL x. ~P(x) ==> P(a)" |
|
50 |
shows "EX x. P(x)" |
|
51 |
apply (rule ex_classical) |
|
52 |
apply (rule notI [THEN allI, THEN r]) |
|
53 |
apply (erule notE) |
|
54 |
apply (erule exI) |
|
55 |
done |
|
56 |
||
57 |
lemma excluded_middle: "~P | P" |
|
58 |
apply (rule disjCI) |
|
59 |
apply assumption |
|
60 |
done |
|
61 |
||
62 |
(*For disjunctive case analysis*) |
|
63 |
ML {* |
|
22139 | 64 |
fun excluded_middle_tac sP = |
65 |
res_inst_tac [("Q",sP)] (@{thm excluded_middle} RS @{thm disjE}) |
|
21539 | 66 |
*} |
67 |
||
68 |
lemma case_split_thm: |
|
69 |
assumes r1: "P ==> Q" |
|
70 |
and r2: "~P ==> Q" |
|
71 |
shows Q |
|
72 |
apply (rule excluded_middle [THEN disjE]) |
|
73 |
apply (erule r2) |
|
74 |
apply (erule r1) |
|
75 |
done |
|
76 |
||
77 |
lemmas case_split = case_split_thm [case_names True False, cases type: o] |
|
78 |
||
79 |
(*HOL's more natural case analysis tactic*) |
|
80 |
ML {* |
|
22139 | 81 |
fun case_tac a = res_inst_tac [("P",a)] @{thm case_split_thm} |
21539 | 82 |
*} |
83 |
||
84 |
||
85 |
(*** Special elimination rules *) |
|
86 |
||
87 |
||
88 |
(*Classical implies (-->) elimination. *) |
|
89 |
lemma impCE: |
|
90 |
assumes major: "P-->Q" |
|
91 |
and r1: "~P ==> R" |
|
92 |
and r2: "Q ==> R" |
|
93 |
shows R |
|
94 |
apply (rule excluded_middle [THEN disjE]) |
|
95 |
apply (erule r1) |
|
96 |
apply (rule r2) |
|
97 |
apply (erule major [THEN mp]) |
|
98 |
done |
|
99 |
||
100 |
(*This version of --> elimination works on Q before P. It works best for |
|
101 |
those cases in which P holds "almost everywhere". Can't install as |
|
102 |
default: would break old proofs.*) |
|
103 |
lemma impCE': |
|
104 |
assumes major: "P-->Q" |
|
105 |
and r1: "Q ==> R" |
|
106 |
and r2: "~P ==> R" |
|
107 |
shows R |
|
108 |
apply (rule excluded_middle [THEN disjE]) |
|
109 |
apply (erule r2) |
|
110 |
apply (rule r1) |
|
111 |
apply (erule major [THEN mp]) |
|
112 |
done |
|
113 |
||
114 |
(*Double negation law*) |
|
115 |
lemma notnotD: "~~P ==> P" |
|
116 |
apply (rule classical) |
|
117 |
apply (erule notE) |
|
118 |
apply assumption |
|
119 |
done |
|
120 |
||
121 |
lemma contrapos2: "[| Q; ~ P ==> ~ Q |] ==> P" |
|
122 |
apply (rule classical) |
|
123 |
apply (drule (1) meta_mp) |
|
124 |
apply (erule (1) notE) |
|
125 |
done |
|
126 |
||
127 |
(*** Tactics for implication and contradiction ***) |
|
128 |
||
129 |
(*Classical <-> elimination. Proof substitutes P=Q in |
|
130 |
~P ==> ~Q and P ==> Q *) |
|
131 |
lemma iffCE: |
|
132 |
assumes major: "P<->Q" |
|
133 |
and r1: "[| P; Q |] ==> R" |
|
134 |
and r2: "[| ~P; ~Q |] ==> R" |
|
135 |
shows R |
|
136 |
apply (rule major [unfolded iff_def, THEN conjE]) |
|
137 |
apply (elim impCE) |
|
138 |
apply (erule (1) r2) |
|
139 |
apply (erule (1) notE)+ |
|
140 |
apply (erule (1) r1) |
|
141 |
done |
|
142 |
||
143 |
||
144 |
(*Better for fast_tac: needs no quantifier duplication!*) |
|
145 |
lemma alt_ex1E: |
|
146 |
assumes major: "EX! x. P(x)" |
|
147 |
and r: "!!x. [| P(x); ALL y y'. P(y) & P(y') --> y=y' |] ==> R" |
|
148 |
shows R |
|
149 |
using major |
|
150 |
proof (rule ex1E) |
|
151 |
fix x |
|
152 |
assume * : "\<forall>y. P(y) \<longrightarrow> y = x" |
|
153 |
assume "P(x)" |
|
154 |
then show R |
|
155 |
proof (rule r) |
|
156 |
{ fix y y' |
|
157 |
assume "P(y)" and "P(y')" |
|
158 |
with * have "x = y" and "x = y'" by - (tactic "IntPr.fast_tac 1")+ |
|
159 |
then have "y = y'" by (rule subst) |
|
160 |
} note r' = this |
|
161 |
show "\<forall>y y'. P(y) \<and> P(y') \<longrightarrow> y = y'" by (intro strip, elim conjE) (rule r') |
|
162 |
qed |
|
163 |
qed |
|
9525 | 164 |
|
10383 | 165 |
use "cladata.ML" |
166 |
setup Cla.setup |
|
14156 | 167 |
setup cla_setup |
168 |
setup case_setup |
|
10383 | 169 |
|
9487 | 170 |
use "blastdata.ML" |
171 |
setup Blast.setup |
|
13550 | 172 |
|
173 |
||
174 |
lemma ex1_functional: "[| EX! z. P(a,z); P(a,b); P(a,c) |] ==> b = c" |
|
21539 | 175 |
by blast |
20223 | 176 |
|
177 |
(* Elimination of True from asumptions: *) |
|
178 |
lemma True_implies_equals: "(True ==> PROP P) == PROP P" |
|
179 |
proof |
|
180 |
assume "True \<Longrightarrow> PROP P" |
|
181 |
from this and TrueI show "PROP P" . |
|
182 |
next |
|
183 |
assume "PROP P" |
|
184 |
then show "PROP P" . |
|
185 |
qed |
|
9487 | 186 |
|
21539 | 187 |
lemma uncurry: "P --> Q --> R ==> P & Q --> R" |
188 |
by blast |
|
189 |
||
190 |
lemma iff_allI: "(!!x. P(x) <-> Q(x)) ==> (ALL x. P(x)) <-> (ALL x. Q(x))" |
|
191 |
by blast |
|
192 |
||
193 |
lemma iff_exI: "(!!x. P(x) <-> Q(x)) ==> (EX x. P(x)) <-> (EX x. Q(x))" |
|
194 |
by blast |
|
195 |
||
196 |
lemma all_comm: "(ALL x y. P(x,y)) <-> (ALL y x. P(x,y))" by blast |
|
197 |
||
198 |
lemma ex_comm: "(EX x y. P(x,y)) <-> (EX y x. P(x,y))" by blast |
|
199 |
||
9487 | 200 |
use "simpdata.ML" |
201 |
setup simpsetup |
|
202 |
setup "Simplifier.method_setup Splitter.split_modifiers" |
|
203 |
setup Splitter.setup |
|
204 |
setup Clasimp.setup |
|
18591 | 205 |
setup EqSubst.setup |
15481 | 206 |
|
207 |
||
14085 | 208 |
subsection {* Other simple lemmas *} |
209 |
||
210 |
lemma [simp]: "((P-->R) <-> (Q-->R)) <-> ((P<->Q) | R)" |
|
211 |
by blast |
|
212 |
||
213 |
lemma [simp]: "((P-->Q) <-> (P-->R)) <-> (P --> (Q<->R))" |
|
214 |
by blast |
|
215 |
||
216 |
lemma not_disj_iff_imp: "~P | Q <-> (P-->Q)" |
|
217 |
by blast |
|
218 |
||
219 |
(** Monotonicity of implications **) |
|
220 |
||
221 |
lemma conj_mono: "[| P1-->Q1; P2-->Q2 |] ==> (P1&P2) --> (Q1&Q2)" |
|
222 |
by fast (*or (IntPr.fast_tac 1)*) |
|
223 |
||
224 |
lemma disj_mono: "[| P1-->Q1; P2-->Q2 |] ==> (P1|P2) --> (Q1|Q2)" |
|
225 |
by fast (*or (IntPr.fast_tac 1)*) |
|
226 |
||
227 |
lemma imp_mono: "[| Q1-->P1; P2-->Q2 |] ==> (P1-->P2)-->(Q1-->Q2)" |
|
228 |
by fast (*or (IntPr.fast_tac 1)*) |
|
229 |
||
230 |
lemma imp_refl: "P-->P" |
|
231 |
by (rule impI, assumption) |
|
232 |
||
233 |
(*The quantifier monotonicity rules are also intuitionistically valid*) |
|
234 |
lemma ex_mono: "(!!x. P(x) --> Q(x)) ==> (EX x. P(x)) --> (EX x. Q(x))" |
|
235 |
by blast |
|
236 |
||
237 |
lemma all_mono: "(!!x. P(x) --> Q(x)) ==> (ALL x. P(x)) --> (ALL x. Q(x))" |
|
238 |
by blast |
|
239 |
||
11678 | 240 |
|
241 |
subsection {* Proof by cases and induction *} |
|
242 |
||
243 |
text {* Proper handling of non-atomic rule statements. *} |
|
244 |
||
245 |
constdefs |
|
18456 | 246 |
induct_forall where "induct_forall(P) == \<forall>x. P(x)" |
247 |
induct_implies where "induct_implies(A, B) == A \<longrightarrow> B" |
|
248 |
induct_equal where "induct_equal(x, y) == x = y" |
|
249 |
induct_conj where "induct_conj(A, B) == A \<and> B" |
|
11678 | 250 |
|
251 |
lemma induct_forall_eq: "(!!x. P(x)) == Trueprop(induct_forall(\<lambda>x. P(x)))" |
|
18816 | 252 |
unfolding atomize_all induct_forall_def . |
11678 | 253 |
|
254 |
lemma induct_implies_eq: "(A ==> B) == Trueprop(induct_implies(A, B))" |
|
18816 | 255 |
unfolding atomize_imp induct_implies_def . |
11678 | 256 |
|
257 |
lemma induct_equal_eq: "(x == y) == Trueprop(induct_equal(x, y))" |
|
18816 | 258 |
unfolding atomize_eq induct_equal_def . |
11678 | 259 |
|
18456 | 260 |
lemma induct_conj_eq: |
261 |
includes meta_conjunction_syntax |
|
262 |
shows "(A && B) == Trueprop(induct_conj(A, B))" |
|
18816 | 263 |
unfolding atomize_conj induct_conj_def . |
11988 | 264 |
|
18456 | 265 |
lemmas induct_atomize = induct_forall_eq induct_implies_eq induct_equal_eq induct_conj_eq |
266 |
lemmas induct_rulify [symmetric, standard] = induct_atomize |
|
267 |
lemmas induct_rulify_fallback = |
|
268 |
induct_forall_def induct_implies_def induct_equal_def induct_conj_def |
|
11678 | 269 |
|
18456 | 270 |
hide const induct_forall induct_implies induct_equal induct_conj |
11678 | 271 |
|
272 |
||
273 |
text {* Method setup. *} |
|
274 |
||
275 |
ML {* |
|
276 |
structure InductMethod = InductMethodFun |
|
277 |
(struct |
|
22139 | 278 |
val cases_default = @{thm case_split} |
279 |
val atomize = @{thms induct_atomize} |
|
280 |
val rulify = @{thms induct_rulify} |
|
281 |
val rulify_fallback = @{thms induct_rulify_fallback} |
|
11678 | 282 |
end); |
283 |
*} |
|
284 |
||
285 |
setup InductMethod.setup |
|
286 |
||
4854 | 287 |
end |