(* Title: HOL/Isar_Examples/Knaster_Tarski.thy
Author: Markus Wenzel, TU Muenchen
Typical textbook proof example.
*)
header {* Textbook-style reasoning: the Knaster-Tarski Theorem *}
theory Knaster_Tarski
imports Main Lattice_Syntax
begin
subsection {* Prose version *}
text {* According to the textbook \cite[pages
93--94]{davey-priestley}, the Knaster-Tarski fixpoint theorem is as
follows.\footnote{We have dualized the argument, and tuned the
notation a little bit.}
\textbf{The Knaster-Tarski Fixpoint Theorem.} Let @{text L} be a
complete lattice and @{text "f: L \<rightarrow> L"} an order-preserving map.
Then @{text "\<Sqinter>{x \<in> L | f(x) \<le> x}"} is a fixpoint of @{text f}.
\textbf{Proof.} Let @{text "H = {x \<in> L | f(x) \<le> x}"} and @{text "a =
\<Sqinter>H"}. For all @{text "x \<in> H"} we have @{text "a \<le> x"}, so @{text
"f(a) \<le> f(x) \<le> x"}. Thus @{text "f(a)"} is a lower bound of @{text
H}, whence @{text "f(a) \<le> a"}. We now use this inequality to prove
the reverse one (!) and thereby complete the proof that @{text a} is
a fixpoint. Since @{text f} is order-preserving, @{text "f(f(a)) \<le>
f(a)"}. This says @{text "f(a) \<in> H"}, so @{text "a \<le> f(a)"}. *}
subsection {* Formal versions *}
text {* The Isar proof below closely follows the original
presentation. Virtually all of the prose narration has been
rephrased in terms of formal Isar language elements. Just as many
textbook-style proofs, there is a strong bias towards forward proof,
and several bends in the course of reasoning. *}
theorem Knaster_Tarski:
fixes f :: "'a::complete_lattice \<Rightarrow> 'a"
assumes "mono f"
shows "\<exists>a. f a = a"
proof
let ?H = "{u. f u \<le> u}"
let ?a = "\<Sqinter>?H"
show "f ?a = ?a"
proof -
{
fix x
assume "x \<in> ?H"
then have "?a \<le> x" by (rule Inf_lower)
with `mono f` have "f ?a \<le> f x" ..
also from `x \<in> ?H` have "\<dots> \<le> x" ..
finally have "f ?a \<le> x" .
}
then have "f ?a \<le> ?a" by (rule Inf_greatest)
{
also presume "\<dots> \<le> f ?a"
finally (order_antisym) show ?thesis .
}
from `mono f` and `f ?a \<le> ?a` have "f (f ?a) \<le> f ?a" ..
then have "f ?a \<in> ?H" ..
then show "?a \<le> f ?a" by (rule Inf_lower)
qed
qed
text {* Above we have used several advanced Isar language elements,
such as explicit block structure and weak assumptions. Thus we have
mimicked the particular way of reasoning of the original text.
In the subsequent version the order of reasoning is changed to
achieve structured top-down decomposition of the problem at the
outer level, while only the inner steps of reasoning are done in a
forward manner. We are certainly more at ease here, requiring only
the most basic features of the Isar language. *}
theorem Knaster_Tarski':
fixes f :: "'a::complete_lattice \<Rightarrow> 'a"
assumes "mono f"
shows "\<exists>a. f a = a"
proof
let ?H = "{u. f u \<le> u}"
let ?a = "\<Sqinter>?H"
show "f ?a = ?a"
proof (rule order_antisym)
show "f ?a \<le> ?a"
proof (rule Inf_greatest)
fix x
assume "x \<in> ?H"
then have "?a \<le> x" by (rule Inf_lower)
with `mono f` have "f ?a \<le> f x" ..
also from `x \<in> ?H` have "\<dots> \<le> x" ..
finally show "f ?a \<le> x" .
qed
show "?a \<le> f ?a"
proof (rule Inf_lower)
from `mono f` and `f ?a \<le> ?a` have "f (f ?a) \<le> f ?a" ..
then show "f ?a \<in> ?H" ..
qed
qed
qed
end