(* Title: HOL/Proofs/Extraction/Pigeonhole.thy
Author: Stefan Berghofer, TU Muenchen
*)
section \<open>The pigeonhole principle\<close>
theory Pigeonhole
imports Util "~~/src/HOL/Library/Code_Target_Numeral"
begin
text \<open>
We formalize two proofs of the pigeonhole principle, which lead
to extracted programs of quite different complexity. The original
formalization of these proofs in {\sc Nuprl} is due to
Aleksey Nogin @{cite "Nogin-ENTCS-2000"}.
This proof yields a polynomial program.
\<close>
theorem pigeonhole:
"\<And>f. (\<And>i. i \<le> Suc n \<Longrightarrow> f i \<le> n) \<Longrightarrow> \<exists>i j. i \<le> Suc n \<and> j < i \<and> f i = f j"
proof (induct n)
case 0
then have "Suc 0 \<le> Suc 0 \<and> 0 < Suc 0 \<and> f (Suc 0) = f 0" by simp
then show ?case by iprover
next
case (Suc n)
have r:
"k \<le> Suc (Suc n) \<Longrightarrow>
(\<And>i j. Suc k \<le> i \<Longrightarrow> i \<le> Suc (Suc n) \<Longrightarrow> j < i \<Longrightarrow> f i \<noteq> f j) \<Longrightarrow>
(\<exists>i j. i \<le> k \<and> j < i \<and> f i = f j)" for k
proof (induct k)
case 0
let ?f = "\<lambda>i. if f i = Suc n then f (Suc (Suc n)) else f i"
have "\<not> (\<exists>i j. i \<le> Suc n \<and> j < i \<and> ?f i = ?f j)"
proof
assume "\<exists>i j. i \<le> Suc n \<and> j < i \<and> ?f i = ?f j"
then obtain i j where i: "i \<le> Suc n" and j: "j < i" and f: "?f i = ?f j"
by iprover
from j have i_nz: "Suc 0 \<le> i" by simp
from i have iSSn: "i \<le> Suc (Suc n)" by simp
have S0SSn: "Suc 0 \<le> Suc (Suc n)" by simp
show False
proof cases
assume fi: "f i = Suc n"
show False
proof cases
assume fj: "f j = Suc n"
from i_nz and iSSn and j have "f i \<noteq> f j" by (rule 0)
moreover from fi have "f i = f j"
by (simp add: fj [symmetric])
ultimately show ?thesis ..
next
from i and j have "j < Suc (Suc n)" by simp
with S0SSn and le_refl have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> f j"
by (rule 0)
moreover assume "f j \<noteq> Suc n"
with fi and f have "f (Suc (Suc n)) = f j" by simp
ultimately show False ..
qed
next
assume fi: "f i \<noteq> Suc n"
show False
proof cases
from i have "i < Suc (Suc n)" by simp
with S0SSn and le_refl have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> f i"
by (rule 0)
moreover assume "f j = Suc n"
with fi and f have "f (Suc (Suc n)) = f i" by simp
ultimately show False ..
next
from i_nz and iSSn and j
have "f i \<noteq> f j" by (rule 0)
moreover assume "f j \<noteq> Suc n"
with fi and f have "f i = f j" by simp
ultimately show False ..
qed
qed
qed
moreover have "?f i \<le> n" if "i \<le> Suc n" for i
proof -
from that have i: "i < Suc (Suc n)" by simp
have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> f i"
by (rule 0) (simp_all add: i)
moreover have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<le> Suc n"
by (rule Suc) simp
moreover from i have "i \<le> Suc (Suc n)" by simp
then have "f i \<le> Suc n" by (rule Suc)
ultimately show ?thesis
by simp
qed
then have "\<exists>i j. i \<le> Suc n \<and> j < i \<and> ?f i = ?f j"
by (rule Suc)
ultimately show ?case ..
next
case (Suc k)
from search [OF nat_eq_dec] show ?case
proof
assume "\<exists>j<Suc k. f (Suc k) = f j"
then show ?case by (iprover intro: le_refl)
next
assume nex: "\<not> (\<exists>j<Suc k. f (Suc k) = f j)"
have "\<exists>i j. i \<le> k \<and> j < i \<and> f i = f j"
proof (rule Suc)
from Suc show "k \<le> Suc (Suc n)" by simp
fix i j assume k: "Suc k \<le> i" and i: "i \<le> Suc (Suc n)"
and j: "j < i"
show "f i \<noteq> f j"
proof cases
assume eq: "i = Suc k"
show ?thesis
proof
assume "f i = f j"
then have "f (Suc k) = f j" by (simp add: eq)
with nex and j and eq show False by iprover
qed
next
assume "i \<noteq> Suc k"
with k have "Suc (Suc k) \<le> i" by simp
then show ?thesis using i and j by (rule Suc)
qed
qed
then show ?thesis by (iprover intro: le_SucI)
qed
qed
show ?case by (rule r) simp_all
qed
text \<open>
The following proof, although quite elegant from a mathematical point of view,
leads to an exponential program:
\<close>
theorem pigeonhole_slow:
"\<And>f. (\<And>i. i \<le> Suc n \<Longrightarrow> f i \<le> n) \<Longrightarrow> \<exists>i j. i \<le> Suc n \<and> j < i \<and> f i = f j"
proof (induct n)
case 0
have "Suc 0 \<le> Suc 0" ..
moreover have "0 < Suc 0" ..
moreover from 0 have "f (Suc 0) = f 0" by simp
ultimately show ?case by iprover
next
case (Suc n)
from search [OF nat_eq_dec] show ?case
proof
assume "\<exists>j < Suc (Suc n). f (Suc (Suc n)) = f j"
then show ?case by (iprover intro: le_refl)
next
assume "\<not> (\<exists>j < Suc (Suc n). f (Suc (Suc n)) = f j)"
then have nex: "\<forall>j < Suc (Suc n). f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> f j" by iprover
let ?f = "\<lambda>i. if f i = Suc n then f (Suc (Suc n)) else f i"
have "\<And>i. i \<le> Suc n \<Longrightarrow> ?f i \<le> n"
proof -
fix i assume i: "i \<le> Suc n"
show "?thesis i"
proof (cases "f i = Suc n")
case True
from i and nex have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> f i" by simp
with True have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> Suc n" by simp
moreover from Suc have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<le> Suc n" by simp
ultimately have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<le> n" by simp
with True show ?thesis by simp
next
case False
from Suc and i have "f i \<le> Suc n" by simp
with False show ?thesis by simp
qed
qed
then have "\<exists>i j. i \<le> Suc n \<and> j < i \<and> ?f i = ?f j" by (rule Suc)
then obtain i j where i: "i \<le> Suc n" and ji: "j < i" and f: "?f i = ?f j"
by iprover
have "f i = f j"
proof (cases "f i = Suc n")
case True
show ?thesis
proof (cases "f j = Suc n")
assume "f j = Suc n"
with True show ?thesis by simp
next
assume "f j \<noteq> Suc n"
moreover from i ji nex have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> f j" by simp
ultimately show ?thesis using True f by simp
qed
next
case False
show ?thesis
proof (cases "f j = Suc n")
assume "f j = Suc n"
moreover from i nex have "f (Suc (Suc n)) \<noteq> f i" by simp
ultimately show ?thesis using False f by simp
next
assume "f j \<noteq> Suc n"
with False f show ?thesis by simp
qed
qed
moreover from i have "i \<le> Suc (Suc n)" by simp
ultimately show ?thesis using ji by iprover
qed
qed
extract pigeonhole pigeonhole_slow
text \<open>
The programs extracted from the above proofs look as follows:
@{thm [display] pigeonhole_def}
@{thm [display] pigeonhole_slow_def}
The program for searching for an element in an array is
@{thm [display,eta_contract=false] search_def}
The correctness statement for @{term "pigeonhole"} is
@{thm [display] pigeonhole_correctness [no_vars]}
In order to analyze the speed of the above programs,
we generate ML code from them.
\<close>
instantiation nat :: default
begin
definition "default = (0::nat)"
instance ..
end
instantiation prod :: (default, default) default
begin
definition "default = (default, default)"
instance ..
end
definition "test n u = pigeonhole (nat_of_integer n) (\<lambda>m. m - 1)"
definition "test' n u = pigeonhole_slow (nat_of_integer n) (\<lambda>m. m - 1)"
definition "test'' u = pigeonhole 8 (List.nth [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 3, 7, 8])"
ML_val "timeit (@{code test} 10)"
ML_val "timeit (@{code test'} 10)"
ML_val "timeit (@{code test} 20)"
ML_val "timeit (@{code test'} 20)"
ML_val "timeit (@{code test} 25)"
ML_val "timeit (@{code test'} 25)"
ML_val "timeit (@{code test} 500)"
ML_val "timeit @{code test''}"
end