doc-src/Logics/FOL.tex
author clasohm
Thu, 29 Jun 1995 12:28:27 +0200
changeset 1163 c080ff36d24e
parent 874 2432820efbfe
child 1388 7705e6211865
permissions -rw-r--r--
changed 'chol' labels to 'hol'; added a few parentheses
Ignore whitespace changes - Everywhere: Within whitespace: At end of lines:
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
     1
%% $Id$
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
     2
\chapter{First-Order Logic}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
     3
\index{first-order logic|(}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
     4
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
     5
Isabelle implements Gentzen's natural deduction systems {\sc nj} and {\sc
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
     6
  nk}.  Intuitionistic first-order logic is defined first, as theory
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
     7
\thydx{IFOL}.  Classical logic, theory \thydx{FOL}, is
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
     8
obtained by adding the double negation rule.  Basic proof procedures are
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
     9
provided.  The intuitionistic prover works with derived rules to simplify
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    10
implications in the assumptions.  Classical~{\tt FOL} employs Isabelle's
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    11
classical reasoner, which simulates a sequent calculus.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    12
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    13
\section{Syntax and rules of inference}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    14
The logic is many-sorted, using Isabelle's type classes.  The class of
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    15
first-order terms is called \cldx{term} and is a subclass of {\tt logic}.
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    16
No types of individuals are provided, but extensions can define types such
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    17
as {\tt nat::term} and type constructors such as {\tt list::(term)term}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    18
(see the examples directory, {\tt FOL/ex}).  Below, the type variable
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    19
$\alpha$ ranges over class {\tt term}; the equality symbol and quantifiers
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    20
are polymorphic (many-sorted).  The type of formulae is~\tydx{o}, which
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    21
belongs to class~\cldx{logic}.  Figure~\ref{fol-syntax} gives the syntax.
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    22
Note that $a$\verb|~=|$b$ is translated to $\neg(a=b)$.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    23
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    24
Figure~\ref{fol-rules} shows the inference rules with their~\ML\ names.
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    25
Negation is defined in the usual way for intuitionistic logic; $\neg P$
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    26
abbreviates $P\imp\bot$.  The biconditional~($\bimp$) is defined through
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    27
$\conj$ and~$\imp$; introduction and elimination rules are derived for it.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    28
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    29
The unique existence quantifier, $\exists!x.P(x)$, is defined in terms
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    30
of~$\exists$ and~$\forall$.  An Isabelle binder, it admits nested
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    31
quantifications.  For instance, $\exists!x y.P(x,y)$ abbreviates
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    32
$\exists!x. \exists!y.P(x,y)$; note that this does not mean that there
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    33
exists a unique pair $(x,y)$ satisfying~$P(x,y)$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    34
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    35
Some intuitionistic derived rules are shown in
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
    36
Fig.\ts\ref{fol-int-derived}, again with their \ML\ names.  These include
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    37
rules for the defined symbols $\neg$, $\bimp$ and $\exists!$.  Natural
333
2ca08f62df33 final Springer copy
lcp
parents: 313
diff changeset
    38
deduction typically involves a combination of forward and backward
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    39
reasoning, particularly with the destruction rules $(\conj E)$,
333
2ca08f62df33 final Springer copy
lcp
parents: 313
diff changeset
    40
$({\imp}E)$, and~$(\forall E)$.  Isabelle's backward style handles these
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    41
rules badly, so sequent-style rules are derived to eliminate conjunctions,
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    42
implications, and universal quantifiers.  Used with elim-resolution,
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    43
\tdx{allE} eliminates a universal quantifier while \tdx{all_dupE}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    44
re-inserts the quantified formula for later use.  The rules {\tt
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    45
conj_impE}, etc., support the intuitionistic proof procedure
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    46
(see~\S\ref{fol-int-prover}).
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    47
333
2ca08f62df33 final Springer copy
lcp
parents: 313
diff changeset
    48
See the files {\tt FOL/IFOL.thy}, {\tt FOL/IFOL.ML} and
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
    49
{\tt FOL/intprover.ML} for complete listings of the rules and
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    50
derived rules.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    51
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    52
\begin{figure} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    53
\begin{center}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    54
\begin{tabular}{rrr} 
111
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    55
  \it name      &\it meta-type  & \it description \\ 
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    56
  \cdx{Trueprop}& $o\To prop$           & coercion to $prop$\\
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    57
  \cdx{Not}     & $o\To o$              & negation ($\neg$) \\
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    58
  \cdx{True}    & $o$                   & tautology ($\top$) \\
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    59
  \cdx{False}   & $o$                   & absurdity ($\bot$)
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    60
\end{tabular}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    61
\end{center}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    62
\subcaption{Constants}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    63
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    64
\begin{center}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    65
\begin{tabular}{llrrr} 
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    66
  \it symbol &\it name     &\it meta-type & \it priority & \it description \\
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    67
  \sdx{ALL}  & \cdx{All}  & $(\alpha\To o)\To o$ & 10 & 
111
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    68
        universal quantifier ($\forall$) \\
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    69
  \sdx{EX}   & \cdx{Ex}   & $(\alpha\To o)\To o$ & 10 & 
111
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    70
        existential quantifier ($\exists$) \\
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    71
  {\tt EX!}  & \cdx{Ex1}  & $(\alpha\To o)\To o$ & 10 & 
111
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    72
        unique existence ($\exists!$)
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    73
\end{tabular}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    74
\index{*"E"X"! symbol}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    75
\end{center}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    76
\subcaption{Binders} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    77
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    78
\begin{center}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    79
\index{*"= symbol}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    80
\index{&@{\tt\&} symbol}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    81
\index{*"| symbol}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    82
\index{*"-"-"> symbol}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    83
\index{*"<"-"> symbol}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    84
\begin{tabular}{rrrr} 
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
    85
  \it symbol    & \it meta-type         & \it priority & \it description \\ 
111
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    86
  \tt =         & $[\alpha,\alpha]\To o$ & Left 50 & equality ($=$) \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    87
  \tt \&        & $[o,o]\To o$          & Right 35 & conjunction ($\conj$) \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    88
  \tt |         & $[o,o]\To o$          & Right 30 & disjunction ($\disj$) \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    89
  \tt -->       & $[o,o]\To o$          & Right 25 & implication ($\imp$) \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    90
  \tt <->       & $[o,o]\To o$          & Right 25 & biconditional ($\bimp$) 
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    91
\end{tabular}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    92
\end{center}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    93
\subcaption{Infixes}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    94
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    95
\dquotes
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    96
\[\begin{array}{rcl}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
    97
 formula & = & \hbox{expression of type~$o$} \\
111
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    98
         & | & term " = " term \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
    99
         & | & term " \ttilde= " term \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   100
         & | & "\ttilde\ " formula \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   101
         & | & formula " \& " formula \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   102
         & | & formula " | " formula \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   103
         & | & formula " --> " formula \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   104
         & | & formula " <-> " formula \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   105
         & | & "ALL~" id~id^* " . " formula \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   106
         & | & "EX~~" id~id^* " . " formula \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   107
         & | & "EX!~" id~id^* " . " formula
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   108
  \end{array}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   109
\]
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   110
\subcaption{Grammar}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   111
\caption{Syntax of {\tt FOL}} \label{fol-syntax}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   112
\end{figure}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   113
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   114
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   115
\begin{figure} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   116
\begin{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   117
\tdx{refl}        a=a
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   118
\tdx{subst}       [| a=b;  P(a) |] ==> P(b)
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   119
\subcaption{Equality rules}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   120
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   121
\tdx{conjI}       [| P;  Q |] ==> P&Q
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   122
\tdx{conjunct1}   P&Q ==> P
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   123
\tdx{conjunct2}   P&Q ==> Q
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   124
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   125
\tdx{disjI1}      P ==> P|Q
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   126
\tdx{disjI2}      Q ==> P|Q
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   127
\tdx{disjE}       [| P|Q;  P ==> R;  Q ==> R |] ==> R
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   128
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   129
\tdx{impI}        (P ==> Q) ==> P-->Q
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   130
\tdx{mp}          [| P-->Q;  P |] ==> Q
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   131
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   132
\tdx{FalseE}      False ==> P
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   133
\subcaption{Propositional rules}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   134
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   135
\tdx{allI}        (!!x. P(x))  ==> (ALL x.P(x))
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   136
\tdx{spec}        (ALL x.P(x)) ==> P(x)
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   137
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   138
\tdx{exI}         P(x) ==> (EX x.P(x))
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   139
\tdx{exE}         [| EX x.P(x);  !!x. P(x) ==> R |] ==> R
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   140
\subcaption{Quantifier rules}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   141
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   142
\tdx{True_def}    True        == False-->False
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   143
\tdx{not_def}     ~P          == P-->False
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   144
\tdx{iff_def}     P<->Q       == (P-->Q) & (Q-->P)
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   145
\tdx{ex1_def}     EX! x. P(x) == EX x. P(x) & (ALL y. P(y) --> y=x)
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   146
\subcaption{Definitions}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   147
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   148
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   149
\caption{Rules of intuitionistic logic} \label{fol-rules}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   150
\end{figure}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   151
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   152
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   153
\begin{figure} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   154
\begin{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   155
\tdx{sym}       a=b ==> b=a
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   156
\tdx{trans}     [| a=b;  b=c |] ==> a=c
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   157
\tdx{ssubst}    [| b=a;  P(a) |] ==> P(b)
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   158
\subcaption{Derived equality rules}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   159
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   160
\tdx{TrueI}     True
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   161
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   162
\tdx{notI}      (P ==> False) ==> ~P
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   163
\tdx{notE}      [| ~P;  P |] ==> R
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   164
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   165
\tdx{iffI}      [| P ==> Q;  Q ==> P |] ==> P<->Q
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   166
\tdx{iffE}      [| P <-> Q;  [| P-->Q; Q-->P |] ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   167
\tdx{iffD1}     [| P <-> Q;  P |] ==> Q            
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   168
\tdx{iffD2}     [| P <-> Q;  Q |] ==> P
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   169
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   170
\tdx{ex1I}      [| P(a);  !!x. P(x) ==> x=a |]  ==>  EX! x. P(x)
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   171
\tdx{ex1E}      [| EX! x.P(x);  !!x.[| P(x);  ALL y. P(y) --> y=x |] ==> R 
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   172
          |] ==> R
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   173
\subcaption{Derived rules for \(\top\), \(\neg\), \(\bimp\) and \(\exists!\)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   174
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   175
\tdx{conjE}     [| P&Q;  [| P; Q |] ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   176
\tdx{impE}      [| P-->Q;  P;  Q ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   177
\tdx{allE}      [| ALL x.P(x);  P(x) ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   178
\tdx{all_dupE}  [| ALL x.P(x);  [| P(x); ALL x.P(x) |] ==> R |] ==> R
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   179
\subcaption{Sequent-style elimination rules}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   180
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   181
\tdx{conj_impE} [| (P&Q)-->S;  P-->(Q-->S) ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   182
\tdx{disj_impE} [| (P|Q)-->S;  [| P-->S; Q-->S |] ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   183
\tdx{imp_impE}  [| (P-->Q)-->S;  [| P; Q-->S |] ==> Q;  S ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   184
\tdx{not_impE}  [| ~P --> S;  P ==> False;  S ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   185
\tdx{iff_impE}  [| (P<->Q)-->S; [| P; Q-->S |] ==> Q; [| Q; P-->S |] ==> P;
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   186
             S ==> R |] ==> R
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   187
\tdx{all_impE}  [| (ALL x.P(x))-->S;  !!x.P(x);  S ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   188
\tdx{ex_impE}   [| (EX x.P(x))-->S;  P(a)-->S ==> R |] ==> R
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   189
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   190
\subcaption{Intuitionistic simplification of implication}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   191
\caption{Derived rules for intuitionistic logic} \label{fol-int-derived}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   192
\end{figure}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   193
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   194
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   195
\section{Generic packages}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   196
\FOL{} instantiates most of Isabelle's generic packages;
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   197
see {\tt FOL/ROOT.ML} for details.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   198
\begin{itemize}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   199
\item 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   200
Because it includes a general substitution rule, \FOL{} instantiates the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   201
tactic \ttindex{hyp_subst_tac}, which substitutes for an equality
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   202
throughout a subgoal and its hypotheses.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   203
\item 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   204
It instantiates the simplifier. \ttindexbold{IFOL_ss} is the simplification
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   205
set for intuitionistic first-order logic, while \ttindexbold{FOL_ss} is the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   206
simplification set for classical logic.  Both equality ($=$) and the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   207
biconditional ($\bimp$) may be used for rewriting.  See the file
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   208
{\tt FOL/simpdata.ML} for a complete listing of the simplification
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   209
rules%
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   210
\iflabelundefined{sec:setting-up-simp}{}%
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   211
        {, and \S\ref{sec:setting-up-simp} for discussion}.
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   212
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   213
\item 
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   214
It instantiates the classical reasoner.  See~\S\ref{fol-cla-prover}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   215
for details. 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   216
\end{itemize}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   217
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   218
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   219
\section{Intuitionistic proof procedures} \label{fol-int-prover}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   220
Implication elimination (the rules~{\tt mp} and~{\tt impE}) pose
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   221
difficulties for automated proof.  In intuitionistic logic, the assumption
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   222
$P\imp Q$ cannot be treated like $\neg P\disj Q$.  Given $P\imp Q$, we may
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   223
use~$Q$ provided we can prove~$P$; the proof of~$P$ may require repeated
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   224
use of $P\imp Q$.  If the proof of~$P$ fails then the whole branch of the
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   225
proof must be abandoned.  Thus intuitionistic propositional logic requires
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   226
backtracking.  
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   227
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   228
For an elementary example, consider the intuitionistic proof of $Q$ from
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   229
$P\imp Q$ and $(P\imp Q)\imp P$.  The implication $P\imp Q$ is needed
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   230
twice:
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   231
\[ \infer[({\imp}E)]{Q}{P\imp Q &
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   232
       \infer[({\imp}E)]{P}{(P\imp Q)\imp P & P\imp Q}} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   233
\]
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   234
The theorem prover for intuitionistic logic does not use~{\tt impE}.\@
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   235
Instead, it simplifies implications using derived rules
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   236
(Fig.\ts\ref{fol-int-derived}).  It reduces the antecedents of implications
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   237
to atoms and then uses Modus Ponens: from $P\imp Q$ and~$P$ deduce~$Q$.
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   238
The rules \tdx{conj_impE} and \tdx{disj_impE} are 
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   239
straightforward: $(P\conj Q)\imp S$ is equivalent to $P\imp (Q\imp S)$, and
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   240
$(P\disj Q)\imp S$ is equivalent to the conjunction of $P\imp S$ and $Q\imp
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   241
S$.  The other \ldots{\tt_impE} rules are unsafe; the method requires
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   242
backtracking.  All the rules are derived in the same simple manner.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   243
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   244
Dyckhoff has independently discovered similar rules, and (more importantly)
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   245
has demonstrated their completeness for propositional
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   246
logic~\cite{dyckhoff}.  However, the tactics given below are not complete
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   247
for first-order logic because they discard universally quantified
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   248
assumptions after a single use.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   249
\begin{ttbox} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   250
mp_tac            : int -> tactic
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   251
eq_mp_tac         : int -> tactic
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   252
Int.safe_step_tac : int -> tactic
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   253
Int.safe_tac      :        tactic
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   254
Int.inst_step_tac : int -> tactic
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   255
Int.step_tac      : int -> tactic
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   256
Int.fast_tac      : int -> tactic
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   257
Int.best_tac      : int -> tactic
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   258
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   259
Most of these belong to the structure {\tt Int} and resemble the
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   260
tactics of Isabelle's classical reasoner.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   261
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   262
\begin{ttdescription}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   263
\item[\ttindexbold{mp_tac} {\it i}] 
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   264
attempts to use \tdx{notE} or \tdx{impE} within the assumptions in
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   265
subgoal $i$.  For each assumption of the form $\neg P$ or $P\imp Q$, it
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   266
searches for another assumption unifiable with~$P$.  By
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   267
contradiction with $\neg P$ it can solve the subgoal completely; by Modus
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   268
Ponens it can replace the assumption $P\imp Q$ by $Q$.  The tactic can
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   269
produce multiple outcomes, enumerating all suitable pairs of assumptions.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   270
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   271
\item[\ttindexbold{eq_mp_tac} {\it i}] 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   272
is like {\tt mp_tac} {\it i}, but may not instantiate unknowns --- thus, it
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   273
is safe.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   274
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   275
\item[\ttindexbold{Int.safe_step_tac} $i$] performs a safe step on
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   276
subgoal~$i$.  This may include proof by assumption or Modus Ponens (taking
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   277
care not to instantiate unknowns), or {\tt hyp_subst_tac}. 
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   278
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   279
\item[\ttindexbold{Int.safe_tac}] repeatedly performs safe steps on all 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   280
subgoals.  It is deterministic, with at most one outcome.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   281
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   282
\item[\ttindexbold{Int.inst_step_tac} $i$] is like {\tt safe_step_tac},
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   283
but allows unknowns to be instantiated.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   284
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   285
\item[\ttindexbold{Int.step_tac} $i$] tries {\tt safe_tac} or {\tt
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   286
    inst_step_tac}, or applies an unsafe rule.  This is the basic step of
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   287
  the intuitionistic proof procedure.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   288
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   289
\item[\ttindexbold{Int.fast_tac} $i$] applies {\tt step_tac}, using
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   290
depth-first search, to solve subgoal~$i$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   291
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   292
\item[\ttindexbold{Int.best_tac} $i$] applies {\tt step_tac}, using
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   293
best-first search (guided by the size of the proof state) to solve subgoal~$i$.
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   294
\end{ttdescription}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   295
Here are some of the theorems that {\tt Int.fast_tac} proves
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   296
automatically.  The latter three date from {\it Principia Mathematica}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   297
(*11.53, *11.55, *11.61)~\cite{principia}.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   298
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   299
~~P & ~~(P --> Q) --> ~~Q
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   300
(ALL x y. P(x) --> Q(y)) <-> ((EX x. P(x)) --> (ALL y. Q(y)))
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   301
(EX x y. P(x) & Q(x,y)) <-> (EX x. P(x) & (EX y. Q(x,y)))
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   302
(EX y. ALL x. P(x) --> Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. P(x) --> (EX y. Q(x,y)))
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   303
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   304
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   305
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   306
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   307
\begin{figure} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   308
\begin{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   309
\tdx{excluded_middle}    ~P | P
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   310
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   311
\tdx{disjCI}    (~Q ==> P) ==> P|Q
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   312
\tdx{exCI}      (ALL x. ~P(x) ==> P(a)) ==> EX x.P(x)
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   313
\tdx{impCE}     [| P-->Q; ~P ==> R; Q ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   314
\tdx{iffCE}     [| P<->Q;  [| P; Q |] ==> R;  [| ~P; ~Q |] ==> R |] ==> R
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   315
\tdx{notnotD}   ~~P ==> P
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   316
\tdx{swap}      ~P ==> (~Q ==> P) ==> Q
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   317
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   318
\caption{Derived rules for classical logic} \label{fol-cla-derived}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   319
\end{figure}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   320
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   321
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   322
\section{Classical proof procedures} \label{fol-cla-prover}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   323
The classical theory, \thydx{FOL}, consists of intuitionistic logic plus
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   324
the rule
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   325
$$ \vcenter{\infer{P}{\infer*{P}{[\neg P]}}} \eqno(classical) $$
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   326
\noindent
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   327
Natural deduction in classical logic is not really all that natural.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   328
{\FOL} derives classical introduction rules for $\disj$ and~$\exists$, as
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   329
well as classical elimination rules for~$\imp$ and~$\bimp$, and the swap
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   330
rule (see Fig.\ts\ref{fol-cla-derived}).
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   331
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   332
The classical reasoner is set up for \FOL, as the
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   333
structure~{\tt Cla}.  This structure is open, so \ML{} identifiers
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   334
such as {\tt step_tac}, {\tt fast_tac}, {\tt best_tac}, etc., refer to it.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   335
Single-step proofs can be performed, using \ttindex{swap_res_tac} to deal
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   336
with negated assumptions.\index{assumptions!negated}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   337
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   338
{\FOL} defines the following classical rule sets:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   339
\begin{ttbox} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   340
prop_cs    : claset
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   341
FOL_cs     : claset
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   342
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   343
\begin{ttdescription}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   344
\item[\ttindexbold{prop_cs}] contains the propositional rules, namely
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   345
those for~$\top$, $\bot$, $\conj$, $\disj$, $\neg$, $\imp$ and~$\bimp$,
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   346
along with the rule~{\tt refl}.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   347
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   348
\item[\ttindexbold{FOL_cs}] 
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   349
extends {\tt prop_cs} with the safe rules {\tt allI} and~{\tt exE}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   350
and the unsafe rules {\tt allE} and~{\tt exI}, as well as rules for
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   351
unique existence.  Search using this is incomplete since quantified
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   352
formulae are used at most once.
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   353
\end{ttdescription}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   354
\noindent
333
2ca08f62df33 final Springer copy
lcp
parents: 313
diff changeset
   355
See the file {\tt FOL/FOL.ML} for derivations of the
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   356
classical rules, and 
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   357
\iflabelundefined{chap:classical}{the {\em Reference Manual\/}}%
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   358
        {Chap.\ts\ref{chap:classical}} 
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   359
for more discussion of classical proof methods.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   360
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   361
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   362
\section{An intuitionistic example}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   363
Here is a session similar to one in {\em Logic and Computation}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   364
\cite[pages~222--3]{paulson87}.  Isabelle treats quantifiers differently
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   365
from {\sc lcf}-based theorem provers such as {\sc hol}.  The proof begins
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   366
by entering the goal in intuitionistic logic, then applying the rule
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   367
$({\imp}I)$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   368
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   369
goal IFOL.thy "(EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) -->  (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   370
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   371
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   372
{\out  1. (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   373
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   374
by (resolve_tac [impI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   375
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   376
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   377
{\out  1. EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y) ==> ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   378
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   379
In this example, we shall never have more than one subgoal.  Applying
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   380
$({\imp}I)$ replaces~\verb|-->| by~\verb|==>|, making
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   381
\(\ex{y}\all{x}Q(x,y)\) an assumption.  We have the choice of
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   382
$({\exists}E)$ and $({\forall}I)$; let us try the latter.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   383
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   384
by (resolve_tac [allI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   385
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   386
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   387
{\out  1. !!x. EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y) ==> EX y. Q(x,y)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   388
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   389
Applying $({\forall}I)$ replaces the \hbox{\tt ALL x} by \hbox{\tt!!x},
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   390
changing the universal quantifier from object~($\forall$) to
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   391
meta~($\Forall$).  The bound variable is a {\bf parameter} of the
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   392
subgoal.  We now must choose between $({\exists}I)$ and $({\exists}E)$.  What
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   393
happens if the wrong rule is chosen?
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   394
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   395
by (resolve_tac [exI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   396
{\out Level 3}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   397
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   398
{\out  1. !!x. EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y) ==> Q(x,?y2(x))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   399
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   400
The new subgoal~1 contains the function variable {\tt?y2}.  Instantiating
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   401
{\tt?y2} can replace~{\tt?y2(x)} by a term containing~{\tt x}, even
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   402
though~{\tt x} is a bound variable.  Now we analyse the assumption
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   403
\(\exists y.\forall x. Q(x,y)\) using elimination rules:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   404
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   405
by (eresolve_tac [exE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   406
{\out Level 4}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   407
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   408
{\out  1. !!x y. ALL x. Q(x,y) ==> Q(x,?y2(x))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   409
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   410
Applying $(\exists E)$ has produced the parameter {\tt y} and stripped the
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   411
existential quantifier from the assumption.  But the subgoal is unprovable:
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   412
there is no way to unify {\tt ?y2(x)} with the bound variable~{\tt y}.
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   413
Using {\tt choplev} we can return to the critical point.  This time we
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   414
apply $({\exists}E)$:
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   415
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   416
choplev 2;
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   417
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   418
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   419
{\out  1. !!x. EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y) ==> EX y. Q(x,y)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   420
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   421
by (eresolve_tac [exE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   422
{\out Level 3}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   423
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   424
{\out  1. !!x y. ALL x. Q(x,y) ==> EX y. Q(x,y)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   425
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   426
We now have two parameters and no scheme variables.  Applying
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   427
$({\exists}I)$ and $({\forall}E)$ produces two scheme variables, which are
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   428
applied to those parameters.  Parameters should be produced early, as this
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   429
example demonstrates.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   430
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   431
by (resolve_tac [exI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   432
{\out Level 4}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   433
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   434
{\out  1. !!x y. ALL x. Q(x,y) ==> Q(x,?y3(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   435
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   436
by (eresolve_tac [allE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   437
{\out Level 5}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   438
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   439
{\out  1. !!x y. Q(?x4(x,y),y) ==> Q(x,?y3(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   440
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   441
The subgoal has variables {\tt ?y3} and {\tt ?x4} applied to both
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   442
parameters.  The obvious projection functions unify {\tt?x4(x,y)} with~{\tt
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   443
x} and \verb|?y3(x,y)| with~{\tt y}.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   444
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   445
by (assume_tac 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   446
{\out Level 6}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   447
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   448
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   449
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   450
The theorem was proved in six tactic steps, not counting the abandoned
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   451
ones.  But proof checking is tedious; \ttindex{Int.fast_tac} proves the
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   452
theorem in one step.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   453
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   454
goal IFOL.thy "(EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) -->  (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   455
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   456
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   457
{\out  1. (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   458
by (Int.fast_tac 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   459
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   460
{\out (EX y. ALL x. Q(x,y)) --> (ALL x. EX y. Q(x,y))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   461
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   462
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   463
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   464
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   465
\section{An example of intuitionistic negation}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   466
The following example demonstrates the specialized forms of implication
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   467
elimination.  Even propositional formulae can be difficult to prove from
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   468
the basic rules; the specialized rules help considerably.  
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   469
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   470
Propositional examples are easy to invent.  As Dummett notes~\cite[page
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   471
28]{dummett}, $\neg P$ is classically provable if and only if it is
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   472
intuitionistically provable;  therefore, $P$ is classically provable if and
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   473
only if $\neg\neg P$ is intuitionistically provable.%
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   474
\footnote{Of course this holds only for propositional logic, not if $P$ is
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   475
  allowed to contain quantifiers.} Proving $\neg\neg P$ intuitionistically is
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   476
much harder than proving~$P$ classically.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   477
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   478
Our example is the double negation of the classical tautology $(P\imp
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   479
Q)\disj (Q\imp P)$.  When stating the goal, we command Isabelle to expand
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   480
negations to implications using the definition $\neg P\equiv P\imp\bot$.
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   481
This allows use of the special implication rules.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   482
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   483
goalw IFOL.thy [not_def] "~ ~ ((P-->Q) | (Q-->P))";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   484
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   485
{\out ~ ~ ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   486
{\out  1. ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P) --> False) --> False}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   487
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   488
The first step is trivial.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   489
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   490
by (resolve_tac [impI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   491
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   492
{\out ~ ~ ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   493
{\out  1. (P --> Q) | (Q --> P) --> False ==> False}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   494
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   495
By $(\imp E)$ it would suffice to prove $(P\imp Q)\disj (Q\imp P)$, but
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   496
that formula is not a theorem of intuitionistic logic.  Instead we apply
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   497
the specialized implication rule \tdx{disj_impE}.  It splits the
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   498
assumption into two assumptions, one for each disjunct.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   499
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   500
by (eresolve_tac [disj_impE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   501
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   502
{\out ~ ~ ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   503
{\out  1. [| (P --> Q) --> False; (Q --> P) --> False |] ==> False}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   504
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   505
We cannot hope to prove $P\imp Q$ or $Q\imp P$ separately, but
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   506
their negations are inconsistent.  Applying \tdx{imp_impE} breaks down
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   507
the assumption $\neg(P\imp Q)$, asking to show~$Q$ while providing new
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   508
assumptions~$P$ and~$\neg Q$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   509
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   510
by (eresolve_tac [imp_impE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   511
{\out Level 3}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   512
{\out ~ ~ ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   513
{\out  1. [| (Q --> P) --> False; P; Q --> False |] ==> Q}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   514
{\out  2. [| (Q --> P) --> False; False |] ==> False}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   515
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   516
Subgoal~2 holds trivially; let us ignore it and continue working on
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   517
subgoal~1.  Thanks to the assumption~$P$, we could prove $Q\imp P$;
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   518
applying \tdx{imp_impE} is simpler.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   519
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   520
by (eresolve_tac [imp_impE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   521
{\out Level 4}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   522
{\out ~ ~ ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   523
{\out  1. [| P; Q --> False; Q; P --> False |] ==> P}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   524
{\out  2. [| P; Q --> False; False |] ==> Q}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   525
{\out  3. [| (Q --> P) --> False; False |] ==> False}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   526
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   527
The three subgoals are all trivial.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   528
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   529
by (REPEAT (eresolve_tac [FalseE] 2));
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   530
{\out Level 5}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   531
{\out ~ ~ ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   532
{\out  1. [| P; Q --> False; Q; P --> False |] ==> P}
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   533
\ttbreak
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   534
by (assume_tac 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   535
{\out Level 6}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   536
{\out ~ ~ ((P --> Q) | (Q --> P))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   537
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   538
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   539
This proof is also trivial for {\tt Int.fast_tac}.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   540
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   541
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   542
\section{A classical example} \label{fol-cla-example}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   543
To illustrate classical logic, we shall prove the theorem
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   544
$\ex{y}\all{x}P(y)\imp P(x)$.  Informally, the theorem can be proved as
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   545
follows.  Choose~$y$ such that~$\neg P(y)$, if such exists; otherwise
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   546
$\all{x}P(x)$ is true.  Either way the theorem holds.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   547
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   548
The formal proof does not conform in any obvious way to the sketch given
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   549
above.  The key inference is the first one, \tdx{exCI}; this classical
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   550
version of~$(\exists I)$ allows multiple instantiation of the quantifier.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   551
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   552
goal FOL.thy "EX y. ALL x. P(y)-->P(x)";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   553
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   554
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   555
{\out  1. EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   556
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   557
by (resolve_tac [exCI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   558
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   559
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   560
{\out  1. ALL y. ~ (ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)) ==> ALL x. P(?a) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   561
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   562
We can either exhibit a term {\tt?a} to satisfy the conclusion of
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   563
subgoal~1, or produce a contradiction from the assumption.  The next
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   564
steps are routine.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   565
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   566
by (resolve_tac [allI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   567
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   568
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   569
{\out  1. !!x. ALL y. ~ (ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)) ==> P(?a) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   570
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   571
by (resolve_tac [impI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   572
{\out Level 3}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   573
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   574
{\out  1. !!x. [| ALL y. ~ (ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)); P(?a) |] ==> P(x)}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   575
\end{ttbox}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   576
By the duality between $\exists$ and~$\forall$, applying~$(\forall E)$
333
2ca08f62df33 final Springer copy
lcp
parents: 313
diff changeset
   577
in effect applies~$(\exists I)$ again.
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   578
\begin{ttbox}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   579
by (eresolve_tac [allE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   580
{\out Level 4}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   581
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   582
{\out  1. !!x. [| P(?a); ~ (ALL xa. P(?y3(x)) --> P(xa)) |] ==> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   583
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   584
In classical logic, a negated assumption is equivalent to a conclusion.  To
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   585
get this effect, we create a swapped version of~$(\forall I)$ and apply it
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   586
using \ttindex{eresolve_tac}; we could equivalently have applied~$(\forall
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   587
I)$ using \ttindex{swap_res_tac}.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   588
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   589
allI RSN (2,swap);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   590
{\out val it = "[| ~ (ALL x. ?P1(x)); !!x. ~ ?Q ==> ?P1(x) |] ==> ?Q" : thm}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   591
by (eresolve_tac [it] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   592
{\out Level 5}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   593
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   594
{\out  1. !!x xa. [| P(?a); ~ P(x) |] ==> P(?y3(x)) --> P(xa)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   595
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   596
The previous conclusion, {\tt P(x)}, has become a negated assumption.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   597
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   598
by (resolve_tac [impI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   599
{\out Level 6}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   600
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   601
{\out  1. !!x xa. [| P(?a); ~ P(x); P(?y3(x)) |] ==> P(xa)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   602
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   603
The subgoal has three assumptions.  We produce a contradiction between the
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   604
\index{assumptions!contradictory} assumptions~\verb|~P(x)| and~{\tt
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   605
  P(?y3(x))}.  The proof never instantiates the unknown~{\tt?a}.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   606
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   607
by (eresolve_tac [notE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   608
{\out Level 7}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   609
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   610
{\out  1. !!x xa. [| P(?a); P(?y3(x)) |] ==> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   611
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   612
by (assume_tac 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   613
{\out Level 8}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   614
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   615
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   616
\end{ttbox}
874
2432820efbfe removed mention of FOL_dup_cs
lcp
parents: 706
diff changeset
   617
The civilised way to prove this theorem is through \ttindex{deepen_tac},
2432820efbfe removed mention of FOL_dup_cs
lcp
parents: 706
diff changeset
   618
which automatically uses the classical version of~$(\exists I)$:
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   619
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   620
goal FOL.thy "EX y. ALL x. P(y)-->P(x)";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   621
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   622
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   623
{\out  1. EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
874
2432820efbfe removed mention of FOL_dup_cs
lcp
parents: 706
diff changeset
   624
by (deepen_tac FOL_cs 0 1);
2432820efbfe removed mention of FOL_dup_cs
lcp
parents: 706
diff changeset
   625
{\out Depth = 0}
2432820efbfe removed mention of FOL_dup_cs
lcp
parents: 706
diff changeset
   626
{\out Depth = 2}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   627
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   628
{\out EX y. ALL x. P(y) --> P(x)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   629
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   630
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   631
If this theorem seems counterintuitive, then perhaps you are an
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   632
intuitionist.  In constructive logic, proving $\ex{y}\all{x}P(y)\imp P(x)$
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   633
requires exhibiting a particular term~$t$ such that $\all{x}P(t)\imp P(x)$,
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   634
which we cannot do without further knowledge about~$P$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   635
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   636
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   637
\section{Derived rules and the classical tactics}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   638
Classical first-order logic can be extended with the propositional
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   639
connective $if(P,Q,R)$, where 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   640
$$ if(P,Q,R) \equiv P\conj Q \disj \neg P \conj R. \eqno(if) $$
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   641
Theorems about $if$ can be proved by treating this as an abbreviation,
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   642
replacing $if(P,Q,R)$ by $P\conj Q \disj \neg P \conj R$ in subgoals.  But
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   643
this duplicates~$P$, causing an exponential blowup and an unreadable
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   644
formula.  Introducing further abbreviations makes the problem worse.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   645
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   646
Natural deduction demands rules that introduce and eliminate $if(P,Q,R)$
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   647
directly, without reference to its definition.  The simple identity
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   648
\[ if(P,Q,R) \,\bimp\, (P\imp Q)\conj (\neg P\imp R) \]
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   649
suggests that the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   650
$if$-introduction rule should be
157
8258c26ae084 Correction to page 16; thanks to Markus W.
lcp
parents: 111
diff changeset
   651
\[ \infer[({if}\,I)]{if(P,Q,R)}{\infer*{Q}{[P]}  &  \infer*{R}{[\neg P]}} \]
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   652
The $if$-elimination rule reflects the definition of $if(P,Q,R)$ and the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   653
elimination rules for~$\disj$ and~$\conj$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   654
\[ \infer[({if}\,E)]{S}{if(P,Q,R) & \infer*{S}{[P,Q]}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   655
                                  & \infer*{S}{[\neg P,R]}} 
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   656
\]
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   657
Having made these plans, we get down to work with Isabelle.  The theory of
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   658
classical logic, {\tt FOL}, is extended with the constant
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   659
$if::[o,o,o]\To o$.  The axiom \tdx{if_def} asserts the
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   660
equation~$(if)$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   661
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   662
If = FOL +
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   663
consts  if     :: "[o,o,o]=>o"
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   664
rules   if_def "if(P,Q,R) == P&Q | ~P&R"
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   665
end
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   666
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   667
The derivations of the introduction and elimination rules demonstrate the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   668
methods for rewriting with definitions.  Classical reasoning is required,
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   669
so we use {\tt fast_tac}.
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   670
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   671
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   672
\subsection{Deriving the introduction rule}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   673
The introduction rule, given the premises $P\Imp Q$ and $\neg P\Imp R$,
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   674
concludes $if(P,Q,R)$.  We propose the conclusion as the main goal
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   675
using~\ttindex{goalw}, which uses {\tt if_def} to rewrite occurrences
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   676
of $if$ in the subgoal.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   677
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   678
val prems = goalw If.thy [if_def]
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   679
    "[| P ==> Q; ~ P ==> R |] ==> if(P,Q,R)";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   680
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   681
{\out if(P,Q,R)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   682
{\out  1. P & Q | ~ P & R}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   683
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   684
The premises (bound to the {\ML} variable {\tt prems}) are passed as
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   685
introduction rules to \ttindex{fast_tac}:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   686
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   687
by (fast_tac (FOL_cs addIs prems) 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   688
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   689
{\out if(P,Q,R)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   690
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   691
val ifI = result();
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   692
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   693
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   694
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   695
\subsection{Deriving the elimination rule}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   696
The elimination rule has three premises, two of which are themselves rules.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   697
The conclusion is simply $S$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   698
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   699
val major::prems = goalw If.thy [if_def]
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   700
   "[| if(P,Q,R);  [| P; Q |] ==> S; [| ~ P; R |] ==> S |] ==> S";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   701
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   702
{\out S}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   703
{\out  1. S}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   704
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   705
The major premise contains an occurrence of~$if$, but the version returned
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   706
by \ttindex{goalw} (and bound to the {\ML} variable~{\tt major}) has the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   707
definition expanded.  Now \ttindex{cut_facts_tac} inserts~{\tt major} as an
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   708
assumption in the subgoal, so that \ttindex{fast_tac} can break it down.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   709
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   710
by (cut_facts_tac [major] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   711
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   712
{\out S}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   713
{\out  1. P & Q | ~ P & R ==> S}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   714
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   715
by (fast_tac (FOL_cs addIs prems) 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   716
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   717
{\out S}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   718
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   719
val ifE = result();
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   720
\end{ttbox}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   721
As you may recall from
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   722
\iflabelundefined{definitions}{{\em Introduction to Isabelle}}%
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   723
        {\S\ref{definitions}}, there are other
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   724
ways of treating definitions when deriving a rule.  We can start the
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   725
proof using {\tt goal}, which does not expand definitions, instead of
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   726
{\tt goalw}.  We can use \ttindex{rewrite_goals_tac}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   727
to expand definitions in the subgoals --- perhaps after calling
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   728
\ttindex{cut_facts_tac} to insert the rule's premises.  We can use
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   729
\ttindex{rewrite_rule}, which is a meta-inference rule, to expand
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   730
definitions in the premises directly.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   731
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   732
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   733
\subsection{Using the derived rules}
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   734
The rules just derived have been saved with the {\ML} names \tdx{ifI}
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   735
and~\tdx{ifE}.  They permit natural proofs of theorems such as the
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   736
following:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   737
\begin{eqnarray*}
111
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   738
    if(P, if(Q,A,B), if(Q,C,D)) & \bimp & if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D)) \\
1b3cddf41b2d Various updates for Isabelle-93
lcp
parents: 104
diff changeset
   739
    if(if(P,Q,R), A, B)         & \bimp & if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   740
\end{eqnarray*}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   741
Proofs also require the classical reasoning rules and the $\bimp$
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   742
introduction rule (called~\tdx{iffI}: do not confuse with~{\tt ifI}). 
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   743
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   744
To display the $if$-rules in action, let us analyse a proof step by step.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   745
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   746
goal If.thy
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   747
    "if(P, if(Q,A,B), if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q, if(P,A,C), if(P,B,D))";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   748
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   749
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   750
{\out  1. if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   751
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   752
by (resolve_tac [iffI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   753
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   754
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   755
{\out  1. if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   756
{\out  2. if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D)) ==> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   757
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   758
The $if$-elimination rule can be applied twice in succession.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   759
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   760
by (eresolve_tac [ifE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   761
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   762
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   763
{\out  1. [| P; if(Q,A,B) |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   764
{\out  2. [| ~ P; if(Q,C,D) |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   765
{\out  3. if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D)) ==> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   766
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   767
by (eresolve_tac [ifE] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   768
{\out Level 3}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   769
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   770
{\out  1. [| P; Q; A |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   771
{\out  2. [| P; ~ Q; B |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   772
{\out  3. [| ~ P; if(Q,C,D) |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   773
{\out  4. if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D)) ==> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   774
\end{ttbox}
333
2ca08f62df33 final Springer copy
lcp
parents: 313
diff changeset
   775
%
2ca08f62df33 final Springer copy
lcp
parents: 313
diff changeset
   776
In the first two subgoals, all assumptions have been reduced to atoms.  Now
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   777
$if$-introduction can be applied.  Observe how the $if$-rules break down
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   778
occurrences of $if$ when they become the outermost connective.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   779
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   780
by (resolve_tac [ifI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   781
{\out Level 4}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   782
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   783
{\out  1. [| P; Q; A; Q |] ==> if(P,A,C)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   784
{\out  2. [| P; Q; A; ~ Q |] ==> if(P,B,D)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   785
{\out  3. [| P; ~ Q; B |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   786
{\out  4. [| ~ P; if(Q,C,D) |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   787
{\out  5. if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D)) ==> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   788
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   789
by (resolve_tac [ifI] 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   790
{\out Level 5}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   791
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   792
{\out  1. [| P; Q; A; Q; P |] ==> A}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   793
{\out  2. [| P; Q; A; Q; ~ P |] ==> C}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   794
{\out  3. [| P; Q; A; ~ Q |] ==> if(P,B,D)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   795
{\out  4. [| P; ~ Q; B |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   796
{\out  5. [| ~ P; if(Q,C,D) |] ==> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   797
{\out  6. if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D)) ==> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   798
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   799
Where do we stand?  The first subgoal holds by assumption; the second and
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   800
third, by contradiction.  This is getting tedious.  Let us revert to the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   801
initial proof state and let \ttindex{fast_tac} solve it.  The classical
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   802
rule set {\tt if_cs} contains the rules of~{\FOL} plus the derived rules
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   803
for~$if$.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   804
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   805
choplev 0;
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   806
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   807
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   808
{\out  1. if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   809
val if_cs = FOL_cs addSIs [ifI] addSEs[ifE];
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   810
by (fast_tac if_cs 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   811
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   812
{\out if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(Q,C,D)) <-> if(Q,if(P,A,C),if(P,B,D))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   813
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   814
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   815
This tactic also solves the other example.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   816
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   817
goal If.thy "if(if(P,Q,R), A, B) <-> if(P, if(Q,A,B), if(R,A,B))";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   818
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   819
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   820
{\out  1. if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   821
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   822
by (fast_tac if_cs 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   823
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   824
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   825
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   826
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   827
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   828
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   829
\subsection{Derived rules versus definitions}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   830
Dispensing with the derived rules, we can treat $if$ as an
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   831
abbreviation, and let \ttindex{fast_tac} prove the expanded formula.  Let
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   832
us redo the previous proof:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   833
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   834
choplev 0;
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   835
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   836
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   837
{\out  1. if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))}
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   838
\end{ttbox}
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   839
This time, simply unfold using the definition of $if$:
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   840
\begin{ttbox}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   841
by (rewrite_goals_tac [if_def]);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   842
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   843
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   844
{\out  1. (P & Q | ~ P & R) & A | ~ (P & Q | ~ P & R) & B <->}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   845
{\out     P & (Q & A | ~ Q & B) | ~ P & (R & A | ~ R & B)}
287
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   846
\end{ttbox}
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   847
We are left with a subgoal in pure first-order logic:
6b62a6ddbe15 first draft of Springer book
lcp
parents: 157
diff changeset
   848
\begin{ttbox}
104
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   849
by (fast_tac FOL_cs 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   850
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   851
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,A,B))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   852
{\out No subgoals!}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   853
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   854
Expanding definitions reduces the extended logic to the base logic.  This
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   855
approach has its merits --- especially if the prover for the base logic is
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   856
good --- but can be slow.  In these examples, proofs using {\tt if_cs} (the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   857
derived rules) run about six times faster than proofs using {\tt FOL_cs}.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   858
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   859
Expanding definitions also complicates error diagnosis.  Suppose we are having
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   860
difficulties in proving some goal.  If by expanding definitions we have
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   861
made it unreadable, then we have little hope of diagnosing the problem.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   862
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   863
Attempts at program verification often yield invalid assertions.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   864
Let us try to prove one:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   865
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   866
goal If.thy "if(if(P,Q,R), A, B) <-> if(P, if(Q,A,B), if(R,B,A))";
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   867
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   868
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,B,A))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   869
{\out  1. if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,B,A))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   870
by (fast_tac FOL_cs 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   871
{\out by: tactic failed}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   872
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   873
This failure message is uninformative, but we can get a closer look at the
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   874
situation by applying \ttindex{step_tac}.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   875
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   876
by (REPEAT (step_tac if_cs 1));
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   877
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   878
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,B,A))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   879
{\out  1. [| A; ~ P; R; ~ P; R |] ==> B}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   880
{\out  2. [| B; ~ P; ~ R; ~ P; ~ R |] ==> A}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   881
{\out  3. [| ~ P; R; B; ~ P; R |] ==> A}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   882
{\out  4. [| ~ P; ~ R; A; ~ B; ~ P |] ==> R}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   883
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   884
Subgoal~1 is unprovable and yields a countermodel: $P$ and~$B$ are false
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   885
while~$R$ and~$A$ are true.  This truth assignment reduces the main goal to
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   886
$true\bimp false$, which is of course invalid.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   887
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   888
We can repeat this analysis by expanding definitions, using just
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   889
the rules of {\FOL}:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   890
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   891
choplev 0;
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   892
{\out Level 0}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   893
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,B,A))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   894
{\out  1. if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,B,A))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   895
\ttbreak
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   896
by (rewrite_goals_tac [if_def]);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   897
{\out Level 1}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   898
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,B,A))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   899
{\out  1. (P & Q | ~ P & R) & A | ~ (P & Q | ~ P & R) & B <->}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   900
{\out     P & (Q & A | ~ Q & B) | ~ P & (R & B | ~ R & A)}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   901
by (fast_tac FOL_cs 1);
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   902
{\out by: tactic failed}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   903
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   904
Again we apply \ttindex{step_tac}:
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   905
\begin{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   906
by (REPEAT (step_tac FOL_cs 1));
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   907
{\out Level 2}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   908
{\out if(if(P,Q,R),A,B) <-> if(P,if(Q,A,B),if(R,B,A))}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   909
{\out  1. [| A; ~ P; R; ~ P; R; ~ False |] ==> B}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   910
{\out  2. [| A; ~ P; R; R; ~ False; ~ B; ~ B |] ==> Q}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   911
{\out  3. [| B; ~ P; ~ R; ~ P; ~ A |] ==> R}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   912
{\out  4. [| B; ~ P; ~ R; ~ Q; ~ A |] ==> R}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   913
{\out  5. [| B; ~ R; ~ P; ~ A; ~ R; Q; ~ False |] ==> A}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   914
{\out  6. [| ~ P; R; B; ~ P; R; ~ False |] ==> A}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   915
{\out  7. [| ~ P; ~ R; A; ~ B; ~ R |] ==> P}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   916
{\out  8. [| ~ P; ~ R; A; ~ B; ~ R |] ==> Q}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   917
\end{ttbox}
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   918
Subgoal~1 yields the same countermodel as before.  But each proof step has
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   919
taken six times as long, and the final result contains twice as many subgoals.
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   920
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   921
Expanding definitions causes a great increase in complexity.  This is why
d8205bb279a7 Initial revision
lcp
parents:
diff changeset
   922
the classical prover has been designed to accept derived rules.
313
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   923
a45ae7b38672 penultimate Springer draft
lcp
parents: 287
diff changeset
   924
\index{first-order logic|)}