doc-src/TutorialI/Recdef/termination.thy

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/doc-src/TutorialI/Recdef/termination.thy	Wed Apr 19 11:56:31 2000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+(*<*)
+theory termination = Main:;
+(*>*)
+
+text{*
+When a function is defined via \isacommand{recdef}, Isabelle tries to prove
+its termination with the help of the user-supplied measure.  All of the above
+examples are simple enough that Isabelle can prove automatically that the
+measure of the argument goes down in each recursive call. In that case
+$f$.\isa{simps} contains the defining equations (or variants derived from
+them) as theorems. For example, look (via \isacommand{thm}) at
+\isa{sep.simps} and \isa{sep1.simps} to see that they define the same
+function. What is more, those equations are automatically declared as
+simplification rules.
+
+In general, Isabelle may not be able to prove all termination condition
+(there is one for each recursive call) automatically. For example,
+termination of the following artificial function
+*}
+
+consts f :: "nat*nat \\<Rightarrow> nat";
+recdef f "measure(\\<lambda>(x,y). x-y)"
+  "f(x,y) = (if x \\<le> y then x else f(x,y+1))";
+
+text{*\noindent
+is not proved automatically (although maybe it should be). Isabelle prints a
+kind of error message showing you what it was unable to prove. You will then
+have to prove it as a separate lemma before you attempt the definition
+of your function once more. In our case the required lemma is the obvious one:
+*}
+
+lemma termi_lem[simp]: "\\<not> x \\<le> y \\<Longrightarrow> x - Suc y < x - y";
+
+txt{*\noindent
+It was not proved automatically because of the special nature of \isa{-}
+on \isa{nat}. This requires more arithmetic than is tried by default:
+*}
+
+apply(arith).;
+
+text{*\noindent
+Because \isacommand{recdef}'s the termination prover involves simplification,
+we have declared our lemma a simplification rule. Therefore our second
+attempt to define our function will automatically take it into account:
+*}
+
+consts g :: "nat*nat \\<Rightarrow> nat";
+recdef g "measure(\\<lambda>(x,y). x-y)"
+  "g(x,y) = (if x \\<le> y then x else g(x,y+1))";
+
+text{*\noindent
+This time everything works fine. Now \isa{g.simps} contains precisely the
+stated recursion equation for \isa{g} and they are simplification
+rules. Thus we can automatically prove
+*}
+
+theorem wow: "g(1,0) = g(1,1)";
+apply(simp).;
+
+text{*\noindent
+More exciting theorems require induction, which is discussed below.
+
+Because lemma \isa{termi_lem} above was only turned into a
+simplification rule for the sake of the termination proof, we may want to
+disable it again:
+*}
+
+lemmas [simp del] = termi_lem;
+
+text{*
+The attentive reader may wonder why we chose to call our function \isa{g}
+rather than \isa{f} the second time around. The reason is that, despite
+the failed termination proof, the definition of \isa{f} did not
+fail (and thus we could not define it a second time). However, all theorems
+about \isa{f}, for example \isa{f.simps}, carry as a precondition the
+unproved termination condition. Moreover, the theorems \isa{f.simps} are
+not simplification rules. However, this mechanism allows a delayed proof of
+termination: instead of proving \isa{termi_lem} up front, we could prove
+it later on and then use it to remove the preconditions from the theorems
+about \isa{f}. In most cases this is more cumbersome than proving things
+up front
+%FIXME, with one exception: nested recursion.
+
+Although all the above examples employ measure functions, \isacommand{recdef}
+allows arbitrary wellfounded relations. For example, termination of
+Ackermann's function requires the lexicographic product \isa{<*lex*>}:
+*}
+
+consts ack :: "nat*nat \\<Rightarrow> nat";
+recdef ack "measure(%m. m) <*lex*> measure(%n. n)"
+  "ack(0,n)         = Suc n"
+  "ack(Suc m,0)     = ack(m, 1)"
+  "ack(Suc m,Suc n) = ack(m,ack(Suc m,n))";
+
+text{*\noindent
+For details see the manual~\cite{isabelle-HOL} and the examples in the
+library.
+*}
+
+(*<*)
+end
+(*>*)