(* Title: HOL/Isar_Examples/Knaster_Tarski.thy
Author: Markus Wenzel, TU Muenchen
Typical textbook proof example.
*)
section \<open>Textbook-style reasoning: the Knaster-Tarski Theorem\<close>
theory Knaster_Tarski
imports Main "~~/src/HOL/Library/Lattice_Syntax"
begin
subsection \<open>Prose version\<close>
text \<open>According to the textbook @{cite \<open>pages 93--94\<close> "davey-priestley"},
the Knaster-Tarski fixpoint theorem is as follows.\footnote{We have
dualized the argument, and tuned the notation a little bit.}
\<^bold>\<open>The Knaster-Tarski Fixpoint Theorem.\<close> Let \<open>L\<close> be a complete lattice and
\<open>f: L \<rightarrow> L\<close> an order-preserving map. Then \<open>\<Sqinter>{x \<in> L | f(x) \<le> x}\<close> is a
fixpoint of \<open>f\<close>.
\<^bold>\<open>Proof.\<close> Let \<open>H = {x \<in> L | f(x) \<le> x}\<close> and \<open>a = \<Sqinter>H\<close>. For all \<open>x \<in> H\<close> we
have \<open>a \<le> x\<close>, so \<open>f(a) \<le> f(x) \<le> x\<close>. Thus \<open>f(a)\<close> is a lower bound of \<open>H\<close>,
whence \<open>f(a) \<le> a\<close>. We now use this inequality to prove the reverse one (!)
and thereby complete the proof that \<open>a\<close> is a fixpoint. Since \<open>f\<close> is
order-preserving, \<open>f(f(a)) \<le> f(a)\<close>. This says \<open>f(a) \<in> H\<close>, so \<open>a \<le> f(a)\<close>.\<close>
subsection \<open>Formal versions\<close>
text \<open>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.\<close>
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 \<open>mono f\<close> have "f ?a \<le> f x" ..
also from \<open>x \<in> ?H\<close> 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 \<open>mono f\<close> and \<open>f ?a \<le> ?a\<close> 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 \<open>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.\<close>
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 \<open>mono f\<close> have "f ?a \<le> f x" ..
also from \<open>x \<in> ?H\<close> have "\<dots> \<le> x" ..
finally show "f ?a \<le> x" .
qed
show "?a \<le> f ?a"
proof (rule Inf_lower)
from \<open>mono f\<close> and \<open>f ?a \<le> ?a\<close> have "f (f ?a) \<le> f ?a" ..
then show "f ?a \<in> ?H" ..
qed
qed
qed
end