(*<*)
theory natsum = Main:;
(*>*)
text{*\noindent
In particular, there are @{text"case"}-expressions, for example
@{term[display]"case n of 0 => 0 | Suc m => m"}
primitive recursion, for example
*}
consts sum :: "nat \<Rightarrow> nat";
primrec "sum 0 = 0"
"sum (Suc n) = Suc n + sum n";
text{*\noindent
and induction, for example
*}
lemma "sum n + sum n = n*(Suc n)";
apply(induct_tac n);
apply(auto);
done
text{*\newcommand{\mystar}{*%
}
\index{arithmetic operations!for \protect\isa{nat}}%
The arithmetic operations \ttindexboldpos{+}{$HOL2arithfun},
\ttindexboldpos{-}{$HOL2arithfun}, \ttindexboldpos{\mystar}{$HOL2arithfun},
\sdx{div}, \sdx{mod}, \cdx{min} and
\cdx{max} are predefined, as are the relations
\indexboldpos{\isasymle}{$HOL2arithrel} and
\ttindexboldpos{<}{$HOL2arithrel}. As usual, @{prop"m-n = (0::nat)"} if
@{prop"m<n"}. There is even a least number operation
\sdx{LEAST}\@. For example, @{prop"(LEAST n. 0 < n) = Suc 0"}.
\begin{warn}\index{overloading}
The constants \cdx{0} and \cdx{1} and the operations
\ttindexboldpos{+}{$HOL2arithfun}, \ttindexboldpos{-}{$HOL2arithfun},
\ttindexboldpos{\mystar}{$HOL2arithfun}, \cdx{min},
\cdx{max}, \indexboldpos{\isasymle}{$HOL2arithrel} and
\ttindexboldpos{<}{$HOL2arithrel} are overloaded: they are available
not just for natural numbers but for other types as well.
For example, given the goal @{text"x + 0 = x"}, there is nothing to indicate
that you are talking about natural numbers. Hence Isabelle can only infer
that @{term x} is of some arbitrary type where @{text 0} and @{text"+"} are
declared. As a consequence, you will be unable to prove the
goal. To alert you to such pitfalls, Isabelle flags numerals without a
fixed type in its output: @{prop"x+0 = x"}. (In the absence of a numeral,
it may take you some time to realize what has happened if @{text
show_types} is not set). In this particular example, you need to include
an explicit type constraint, for example @{text"x+0 = (x::nat)"}. If there
is enough contextual information this may not be necessary: @{prop"Suc x =
x"} automatically implies @{text"x::nat"} because @{term Suc} is not
overloaded.
For details on overloading see \S\ref{sec:overloading}.
Table~\ref{tab:overloading} in the appendix shows the most important
overloaded operations.
\end{warn}
\begin{warn}
Constant @{text"1::nat"} is defined to equal @{term"Suc 0"}. This definition
(see \S\ref{sec:ConstDefinitions}) is unfolded automatically by some
tactics (like @{text auto}, @{text simp} and @{text arith}) but not by
others (especially the single step tactics in Chapter~\ref{chap:rules}).
If you need the full set of numerals, see~\S\ref{sec:numerals}.
\emph{Novices are advised to stick to @{term"0::nat"} and @{term Suc}.}
\end{warn}
Both @{text auto} and @{text simp}
(a method introduced below, \S\ref{sec:Simplification}) prove
simple arithmetic goals automatically:
*}
lemma "\<lbrakk> \<not> m < n; m < n + (1::nat) \<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> m = n"
(*<*)by(auto)(*>*)
text{*\noindent
For efficiency's sake, this built-in prover ignores quantified formulae,
logical connectives, and all arithmetic operations apart from addition.
In consequence, @{text auto} cannot prove this slightly more complex goal:
*}
lemma "\<not> m < n \<and> m < n + (1::nat) \<Longrightarrow> m = n";
(*<*)by(arith)(*>*)
text{*\noindent
The method \methdx{arith} is more general. It attempts to prove
the first subgoal provided it is a quantifier-free \textbf{linear arithmetic}
formula. Such formulas may involve the
usual logical connectives (@{text"\<not>"}, @{text"\<and>"}, @{text"\<or>"},
@{text"\<longrightarrow>"}), the relations @{text"="}, @{text"\<le>"} and @{text"<"},
and the operations
@{text"+"}, @{text"-"}, @{term min} and @{term max}.
For example,
*}
lemma "min i (max j (k*k)) = max (min (k*k) i) (min i (j::nat))";
apply(arith)
(*<*)done(*>*)
text{*\noindent
succeeds because @{term"k*k"} can be treated as atomic. In contrast,
*}
lemma "n*n = n \<Longrightarrow> n=0 \<or> n=1"
(*<*)oops(*>*)
text{*\noindent
is not proved even by @{text arith} because the proof relies
on properties of multiplication.
\begin{warn}
The running time of @{text arith} is exponential in the number of occurrences
of \ttindexboldpos{-}{$HOL2arithfun}, \cdx{min} and
\cdx{max} because they are first eliminated by case distinctions.
Even for linear arithmetic formulae, \isa{arith} is incomplete. If divisibility plays a
role, it may fail to prove a valid formula, for example
@{text"m+m \<noteq> n+n+(1::nat)"}. Fortunately, such examples are rare.
\end{warn}
*}
(*<*)
end
(*>*)