Concrete Semantics

with Isabelle/HOL

Tobias Nipkow
Fakultät für Informatik
Technische Universität München

2017-3-8

1
Part I
Isabelle

2
 Chapter 2

Programming and Proving

3
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL

2 Type and function definitions

3 Induction Heuristics

4 Simplification

4
 Notation

Implication associates to the right:

A =⇒ B =⇒ C means A =⇒ (B =⇒ C)

Similarly for other arrows: ⇒, −→

A1 ... An means A1 =⇒ . . . =⇒ An =⇒ B
B

6
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL

2 Type and function definitions

3 Induction Heuristics

4 Simplification

7
 HOL = Higher-Order Logic
HOL = Functional Programming + Logic

HOL has
• datatypes
• recursive functions
• logical operators
HOL is a programming language!
Higher-order = functions are values, too!
HOL Formulas:
• For the moment: only term = term,
e.g. 1 + 2 = 4
• Later: ∧, ∨, −→, ∀, . . .
8
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL
Types and terms
Interface
By example: types bool, nat and list
Summary

9
 Types
Basic syntax:
τ ::= (τ )
| bool | nat | int | . . . base types
0
| a | 0b | . . . type variables
| τ ⇒τ functions
| τ ×τ pairs (ascii: *)
| τ list lists
| τ set sets
| ... user-defined types

Convention: τ 1 ⇒ τ 2 ⇒ τ 3 ≡ τ 1 ⇒ (τ 2 ⇒ τ 3 )
10
 Terms

Terms can be formed as follows:

• Function application: f t
is the call of function f with argument t.
If f has more arguments: f t1 t2 . . .
Examples: sin π, plus x y
• Function abstraction: λx. t
is the function with parameter x and result t,
i.e. “x 7→ t ”.
Example: λx. plus x x

11
 Terms
Basic syntax:
t ::= (t)
| a constant or variable (identifier)
| tt function application
| λx. t function abstraction
| ... lots of syntactic sugar

Examples: f (g x) y
h (λx. f (g x))

Convention: f t1 t2 t3 ≡ ((f t1 ) t2 ) t3

This language of terms is known as the λ-calculus.

12
The computation rule of the λ-calculus is the
replacement of formal by actual parameters:

(λx. t) u = t[u/x]

where t[u/x] is “t with u substituted for x”.

Example: (λx. x + 5) 3 = 3 + 5

• The step from (λx. t) u to t[u/x] is called

β-reduction.
• Isabelle performs β-reduction automatically.

13
 Terms must be well-typed
(the argument of every function call must be of the right type)

Notation:
t :: τ means “t is a well-typed term of type τ ”.

t :: τ 1 ⇒ τ 2 u :: τ 1
t u :: τ 2

14
 Type inference

Isabelle automatically computes the type of each variable

in a term. This is called type inference.

In the presence of overloaded functions (functions with

multiple types) this is not always possible.

User can help with type annotations inside the term.

Example: f (x::nat)

15
 Currying

Thou shalt Curry your functions

• Curried: f :: τ 1 ⇒ τ 2 ⇒ τ
• Tupled: f 0 :: τ 1 × τ 2 ⇒ τ

Advantage:

Currying allows partial application

f a1 where a1 :: τ 1

16
 Predefined syntactic sugar
• Infix: +, −, ∗, #, @, . . .
• Mixfix: if then else , case of, . . .

Prefix binds more strongly than infix:

! f x + y ≡ (f x) + y 6≡ f (x + y) !

Enclose if and case in parentheses:

! (if then else ) !
17
 Theory = Isabelle Module

Syntax: theory M yT h
imports T1 . . . Tn
begin
(definitions, theorems, proofs, ...)∗
end

M yT h: name of theory. Must live in file M yT h.thy

Ti : names of imported theories. Import transitive.

Usually: imports Main

18
 Concrete syntax

In .thy files:
Types, terms and formulas need to be inclosed in "

Except for single identifiers

" normally not shown on slides

19
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL
Types and terms
Interface
By example: types bool, nat and list
Summary

20
 isabelle jedit

• Based on jEdit editor

• Processes Isabelle text automatically
when editing .thy files (like modern Java IDEs)

21
Overview_Demo.thy

22
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL
Types and terms
Interface
By example: types bool, nat and list
Summary

23
 Type bool

datatype bool = True | False

Predefined functions:
∧, ∨, −→, . . . :: bool ⇒ bool ⇒ bool

A formula is a term of type bool

if-and-only-if: =

24
 Type nat
datatype nat = 0 | Suc nat

Values of type nat: 0, Suc 0, Suc(Suc 0), . . .

Predefined functions: +, ∗, ... :: nat ⇒ nat ⇒ nat

! Numbers and arithmetic operations are overloaded:

0,1,2,... :: 0a, + :: 0a ⇒ 0a ⇒ 0a

You need type annotations: 1 :: nat, x + (y::nat)

unless the context is unambiguous: Suc z

25
Nat_Demo.thy

26
 An informal proof
Lemma add m 0 = m
Proof by induction on m.
• Case 0 (the base case):
add 0 0 = 0 holds by definition of add.
• Case Suc m (the induction step):
We assume add m 0 = m,
the induction hypothesis (IH).
We need to show add (Suc m) 0 = Suc m.
The proof is as follows:
add (Suc m) 0 = Suc (add m 0) by def. of add
= Suc m by IH

27
 Type 0a list
Lists of elements of type 0a

datatype 0a list = Nil | Cons 0a ( 0a list)

Some lists: Nil, Cons 1 Nil, Cons 1 (Cons 2 Nil), . . .

Syntactic sugar:
• [] = Nil: empty list
• x # xs = Cons x xs:
list with first element x (“head”) and rest xs (“tail”)
• [x1 , . . . , xn ] = x1 # . . . xn # []

28
 Structural Induction for lists

To prove that P(xs) for all lists xs, prove

• P([]) and
• for arbitrary but fixed x and xs,
P(xs) implies P(x#xs).
V
P([]) x xs. P(xs) =⇒ P(x#xs)
P(xs)

29
List_Demo.thy

30
 An informal proof
Lemma app (app xs ys) zs = app xs (app ys zs)
Proof by induction on xs.
• Case Nil: app (app Nil ys) zs = app ys zs =
app Nil (app ys zs) holds by definition of app.
• Case Cons x xs: We assume app (app xs ys) zs =
app xs (app ys zs) (IH), and we need to show
app (app (Cons x xs) ys) zs =
app (Cons x xs) (app ys zs).
The proof is as follows:
app (app (Cons x xs) ys) zs
= Cons x (app (app xs ys) zs) by definition of app
= Cons x (app xs (app ys zs)) by IH
= app (Cons x xs) (app ys zs) by definition of app
31
 Large library: HOL/List.thy
Included in Main.

Don’t reinvent, reuse!

Predefined: xs @ ys (append), length, and map

map f [x1 , . . . , xn ] = [f x1 , . . . , f xn ]

fun map :: ( 0a ⇒ 0b) ⇒ 0a list ⇒ 0b list where

map f [] = [] |
map f (x # xs) = f x # map f xs
Note: map takes function as argument.
32
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL
Types and terms
Interface
By example: types bool, nat and list
Summary

33
• datatype defines (possibly) recursive data types.

• fun defines (possibly) recursive functions by

pattern-matching over datatype constructors.

34
 Proof methods

• induction performs structural induction on some

variable (if the type of the variable is a datatype).

• auto solves as many subgoals as it can, mainly by

simplification (symbolic evaluation):
“=” is used only from left to right!

35
 Proofs
General schema:

lemma name: "..."

apply (...)
apply (...)
..
.
done

If the lemma is suitable as a simplification rule:

lemma name[simp]: "..."

36
 Top down proofs

Command

sorry

“completes” any proof.

Allows top down development:

Assume lemma first, prove it later.

37
 The proof state

V
1. x1 . . . xp . A =⇒ B

x1 . . . xp fixed local variables

A local assumption(s)
B actual (sub)goal

38
 Multiple assumptions

[[ A1 ; . . . ; An ]] =⇒ B
abbreviates
A1 =⇒ . . . =⇒ An =⇒ B

; ≈ “and”

39
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL

2 Type and function definitions

3 Induction Heuristics

4 Simplification

40
2 Type and function definitions
Type definitions
Function definitions

41
 Type synonyms
type_synonym name = τ
Introduces a synonym name for type τ

Examples
type_synonym string = char list
type_synonym ( 0a, 0b)foo = 0a list × 0b list

Type synonyms are expanded after parsing

and are not present in internal representation and output

42
 datatype — the general case
datatype (α1 , . . . , αn )t = C1 τ1,1 . . . τ1,n1
| ...
| Ck τk,1 . . . τk,nk
• Types: Ci :: τi,1 ⇒ · · · ⇒ τi,ni ⇒ (α1 , . . . , αn )t
• Distinctness: Ci . . . 6= Cj . . . if i 6= j
• Injectivity: (Ci x1 . . . xni = Ci y1 . . . yni ) =
(x1 = y1 ∧ · · · ∧ xni = yni )

Distinctness and injectivity are applied automatically

Induction must be applied explicitly

43
 Case expressions
Datatype values can be taken apart with case:
(case xs of [] ⇒ . . . | y#ys ⇒ ... y ... ys ...)

Wildcards:
(case m of 0 ⇒ Suc 0 | Suc ⇒ 0)

Nested patterns:
(case xs of [0] ⇒ 0 | [Suc n] ⇒ n | ⇒ 2)

Complicated patterns mean complicated proofs!

Need ( ) in context
44
Tree_Demo.thy

45
 The option type

datatype 0a option = None | Some 0a

If 0a has values a1 , a2 , . . .
then 0a option has values None, Some a1 , Some a2 , . . .

Typical application:
fun lookup :: ( 0a × 0b) list ⇒ 0a ⇒ 0b option where
lookup [] x = None |
lookup ((a,b) # ps) x =
(if a = x then Some b else lookup ps x)

46
2 Type and function definitions
Type definitions
Function definitions

47
 Non-recursive definitions

Example
definition sq :: nat ⇒ nat where sq n = n∗n

No pattern matching, just f x1 . . . xn = . . .

48
The danger of nontermination

How about f x = f x + 1 ?

! All functions in HOL must be total !

49
 Key features of fun

• Pattern-matching over datatype constructors

• Order of equations matters

• Termination must be provable automatically

by size measures

• Proves customized induction schema

50
 Example: separation

fun sep :: 0a ⇒ 0a list ⇒ 0a list where

sep a (x#y#zs) = x # a # sep a (y#zs) |
sep a xs = xs

51
 Example: Ackermann
fun ack :: nat ⇒ nat ⇒ nat where
ack 0 n = Suc n |
ack (Suc m) 0 = ack m (Suc 0) |
ack (Suc m) (Suc n) = ack m (ack (Suc m) n)
Terminates because the arguments decrease
lexicographically with each recursive call:
• (Suc m, 0) > (m, Suc 0)
• (Suc m, Suc n) > (Suc m, n)
• (Suc m, Suc n) > (m, )

52
 primrec
• A restrictive version of fun
• Means primitive recursive
• Most functions are primitive recursive
• Frequently found in Isabelle theories

The essence of primitive recursion:

f(0) = ... no recursion
f(Suc n) = . . . f(n). . .
g([]) = ... no recursion
g(x#xs) = . . . g(xs). . .

53
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL

2 Type and function definitions

3 Induction Heuristics

4 Simplification

54
 Basic induction heuristics

Theorems about recursive functions

are proved by induction

Induction on argument number i of f

if f is defined by recursion on argument number i

55
 A tail recursive reverse
Our initial reverse:
fun rev :: 0a list ⇒ 0a list where
rev [] = [] |
rev (x#xs) = rev xs @ [x]
A tail recursive version:
fun itrev :: 0a list ⇒ 0a list ⇒ 0a list where
itrev [] ys = ys |
itrev (x#xs) ys =

lemma itrev xs [] = rev xs

56
Induction_Demo.thy

Generalisation

57
 Generalisation

• Replace constants by variables

• Generalize free variables

• by arbitrary in induction proof
• (or by universal quantifier in formula)

58
So far, all proofs were by structural induction
because all functions were primitive recursive.
In each induction step, 1 constructor is added.
In each recursive call, 1 constructor is removed.
Now: induction for complex recursion patterns.

59
 Computation Induction
Example
fun div2 :: nat ⇒ nat where
div2 0 = 0 |
div2 (Suc 0) = 0 |
div2 (Suc(Suc n)) = Suc(div2 n)

; induction rule div2.induct:

V
P (0) P (Suc 0) n. P (n) =⇒ P (Suc(Suc n))
P (m)

60
 Computation Induction
If f :: τ ⇒ τ 0 is defined by fun, a special induction
schema is provided to prove P (x) for all x :: τ :
for each defining equation

f (e) = . . . f (r1 ) . . . f (rk ) . . .

prove P (e) assuming P (r1 ), . . . , P (rk ).

Induction follows course of (terminating!) computation

Motto: properties of f are best proved by rule f.induct

61
 How to apply f.induct

If f :: τ1 ⇒ · · · ⇒ τn ⇒ τ 0 :

(induction a1 . . . an rule: f.induct)

Heuristic:
• there should be a call f a1 . . . an in your goal
• ideally the ai should be variables.

62
Induction_Demo.thy

Computation Induction

63
1 Overview of Isabelle/HOL

2 Type and function definitions

3 Induction Heuristics

4 Simplification

64
 Simplification means . . .

Using equations l = r from left to right

As long as possible

Terminology: equation ; simplification rule

Simplification = (Term) Rewriting

65
 An example
0+n = n (1)
(Suc m) + n = Suc (m + n) (2)
Equations:
(Suc m ≤ Suc n) = (m ≤ n) (3)
(0 ≤ m) = T rue (4)

(1)
0 + Suc 0 ≤ Suc 0 + x =
(2)
Suc 0 ≤ Suc 0 + x =
Rewriting: (3)
Suc 0 ≤ Suc (0 + x) =
(4)
0 ≤ 0+x =
T rue
66
 Conditional rewriting
Simplification rules can be conditional:

[[ P1 ; . . . ; Pk ]] =⇒ l = r

is applicable only if all Pi can be proved first,

again by simplification.

Example
p(0) = T rue
p(x) =⇒ f (x) = g(x)
We can simplify f (0) to g(0) but
we cannot simplify f (1) because p(1) is not provable.
67
 Termination
Simplification may not terminate.
Isabelle uses simp-rules (almost) blindly from left to right.

Example: f (x) = g(x), g(x) = f (x)

[[ P1 ; . . . ; Pk ]] =⇒ l = r
is suitable as a simp-rule only
if l is “bigger” than r and each Pi

n < m =⇒ (n < Suc m) = True YES

Suc n < m =⇒ (n < m) = True NO
68
 Proof method simp
Goal: 1. [[ P1 ; . . . ; Pm ]] =⇒ C

apply(simp add: eq1 . . . eqn )

Simplify P1 . . . Pm and C using
• lemmas with attribute simp
• rules from fun and datatype
• additional lemmas eq1 . . . eqn
• assumptions P1 . . . Pm
Variations:
• (simp . . . del: . . . ) removes simp-lemmas
• add and del are optional
69
 auto versus simp

• auto acts on all subgoals

• simp acts only on subgoal 1

• auto applies simp and more

• auto can also be modified:

(auto simp add: . . . simp del: . . . )

70
 Rewriting with definitions

Definitions (definition) must be used explicitly:

(simp add: f def . . . )

f is the function whose definition is to be unfolded.

71
 Case splitting with simp
Automatic:

P(if A then s else t)

=
(A −→ P(s)) ∧ (¬A −→ P(t))

By hand:

P(case e of 0 ⇒ a | Suc n ⇒ b)
=
(e = 0 −→ P(a)) ∧ (∀ n. e = Suc n −→ P(b))

Proof method: (simp split: nat.split)

Or auto. Similar for any datatype t: t.split
72
Simp_Demo.thy

73
 Chapter 3

Case Study: IMP Expressions

74
5 Case Study: IMP Expressions

75
5 Case Study: IMP Expressions

76
This section introduces

arithmetic and boolean expressions

of our imperative language IMP.

IMP commands are introduced later.

77
5 Case Study: IMP Expressions
Arithmetic Expressions
Boolean Expressions
Stack Machine and Compilation

78
 Concrete and abstract syntax
Concrete syntax: strings, eg "a+5*b"
Abstract syntax: trees, eg +
@
@
a @
*

A


AA
5 b

Parser: function from strings to trees

Linear view of trees: terms, eg Plus a (Times 5 b)

Abstract syntax trees/terms are datatype values!

79
Concrete syntax is defined by a context-free grammar, eg

a ::= n | x | (a) | a + a | a ∗ a | . . .

where n can be any natural number and x any variable.

We focus on abstract syntax

which we introduce via datatypes.

80
 Datatype aexp
Variable names are strings, values are integers:
type_synonym vname = string
datatype aexp = N int | V vname | Plus aexp aexp
Concrete Abstract
5 N5
x V 00x 00
x+y Plus (V 00x 00) (V 00y 00)
2+(z+3) Plus (N 2) (Plus (V 00z 00) (N 3))

81
 Warning

This is syntax, not (yet) semantics!

N 0 6= Plus (N 0) (N 0)

82
 The (program) state

What is the value of x+1?

• The value of an expression

depends on the value of its variables.
• The value of all variables is recorded in the state.
• The state is a function from variable names to
values:
type_synonym val = int
type_synonym state = vname ⇒ val

83
 Function update notation

If f :: τ 1 ⇒ τ 2 and a :: τ 1 and b :: τ 2 then

f (a := b)

is the function that behaves like f

except that it returns b for argument a.

f(a := b) = (λx. if x = a then b else f x)

84
 How to write down a state
Some states:
• λx. 0
• (λx. 0)( 00a 00 := 3)
• ((λx. 0)( 00a 00 := 5))( 00x 00 := 3)

Nicer notation:

< 00a 00 := 5, 00x 00 := 3, 00y 00 := 7>

Maps everything to 0, but 00a 00 to 5, 00x 00 to 3, etc.

85
AExp.thy

86
5 Case Study: IMP Expressions
Arithmetic Expressions
Boolean Expressions
Stack Machine and Compilation

87
BExp.thy

88
5 Case Study: IMP Expressions
Arithmetic Expressions
Boolean Expressions
Stack Machine and Compilation

89
ASM.thy

90
This was easy.
Because evaluation of expressions always terminates.
But execution of programs may not terminate.
Hence we cannot define it by a total recursive function.

We need more logical machinery

to define program execution and reason about it.

91
 Chapter 4

Logic and Proof

Beyond Equality

92
6 Logical Formulas

7 Proof Automation

8 Single Step Proofs

9 Inductive Definitions

93
6 Logical Formulas

7 Proof Automation

8 Single Step Proofs

9 Inductive Definitions

94
Syntax (in decreasing precedence):
form ::= (form) | term = term | ¬form
| form ∧ form | form ∨ form | form −→ form
| ∀x. form | ∃x. form

Examples:
¬A∧B∨C ≡ ((¬ A) ∧ B) ∨ C
s=t∧C ≡ (s = t) ∧ C
A∧B=B∧A ≡ A ∧ (B = B) ∧ A
∀ x. P x ∧ Q x ≡ ∀ x. (P x ∧ Q x)
Input syntax: ←→ (same precedence as −→)

95
Variable binding convention:

∀ x y. P x y ≡ ∀ x. ∀ y. P x y

Similarly for ∃ and λ.

96
 Warning

Quantifiers have low precedence

and need to be parenthesized (if in some context)

! P ∧ ∀ x. Q x ; P ∧ (∀ x. Q x) !

97
 Mathematical symbols
. . . and their ascii representations:
∀ \<forall> ALL
∃ \<exists> EX
λ \<lambda> %
−→ -->
←→ <->
∧ /\ &
∨ \/ |
¬ \<not> ~
6 = \<noteq> ~=

98
 Sets over type 0a
0
a set

• {}, {e1 ,. . . ,en }

• e ∈ A, A ⊆ B
• A ∪ B, A ∩ B, A − B, − A
• ...

∈ \<in> :
⊆ \<subseteq> <=
∪ \<union> Un
∩ \<inter> Int
99
 Set comprehension

• {x. P} where x is a variable

• But not {t. P} where t is a proper term
• Instead: {t |x y z. P}
is short for {v. ∃ x y z. v = t ∧ P}
where x, y, z are the free variables in t

100
6 Logical Formulas

7 Proof Automation

8 Single Step Proofs

9 Inductive Definitions

101
 simp and auto

simp: rewriting and a bit of arithmetic

auto: rewriting and a bit of arithmetic, logic and sets

• Show you where they got stuck

• highly incomplete
• Extensible with new simp-rules

Exception: auto acts on all subgoals

102
 fastforce

• rewriting, logic, sets, relations and a bit of arithmetic.

• incomplete but better than auto.
• Succeeds or fails
• Extensible with new simp-rules

103
 blast

• A complete proof search procedure for FOL . . .

• . . . but (almost) without “=”
• Covers logic, sets and relations
• Succeeds or fails
• Extensible with new deduction rules

104
 Automating arithmetic

arith:
• proves linear formulas (no “∗”)
• complete for quantifier-free real arithmetic
• complete for first-order theory of nat and int
(Presburger arithmetic)

105
Sledgehammer

106
Architecture:
Isabelle
Goal
& filtered library
↓ ↑ Proof
external
ATPs1

Characteristics:
• Sometimes it works,
• sometimes it doesn’t.

Do you feel lucky?

1
Automatic Theorem Provers
107
by(proof-method)

apply(proof-method)
done

108
Auto_Proof_Demo.thy

109
6 Logical Formulas

7 Proof Automation

8 Single Step Proofs

9 Inductive Definitions

110
Step-by-step proofs can be necessary if automation fails
and you have to explore where and why it failed by
taking the goal apart.

111
 What are these ?-variables ?
After you have finished a proof, Isabelle turns all free
variables V in the theorem into ?V.
Example: theorem conjI: [[?P; ?Q]] =⇒ ?P ∧ ?Q
These ?-variables can later be instantiated:
• By hand:
conjI[of "a=b" "False"] ;
[[a = b; False]] =⇒ a = b ∧ False
• By unification:
unifying ?P ∧ ?Q with a=b ∧ False
sets ?P to a=b and ?Q to False.

112
 Rule application
Example: rule: [[?P; ?Q]] =⇒ ?P ∧ ?Q
subgoal: 1. . . . =⇒ A ∧ B
Result: 1. . . . =⇒ A
2. . . . =⇒ B
The general case: applying rule [[ A1 ; . . . ; An ]] =⇒ A
to subgoal . . . =⇒ C:
• Unify A and C
• Replace C with n new subgoals A1 . . . An

apply(rule xyz)
“Backchaining”
113
 Typical backwards rules
?P ?Q
conjI
?P ∧ ?Q
V
?P =⇒ ?Q x. ?P x
impI allI
?P −→ ?Q ∀ x. ?P x

?P =⇒ ?Q ?Q =⇒ ?P
iffI
?P = ?Q

They are known as introduction rules

because they introduce a particular connective.
114
 Automating intro rules
If r is a theorem [[ A1 ; . . . ; An ]] =⇒ A then

(blast intro: r)

allows blast to backchain on r during proof search.

Example:
theorem le trans: [[ ?x ≤ ?y; ?y ≤ ?z ]] =⇒ ?x ≤ ?z
goal 1. [[ a ≤ b; b ≤ c; c ≤ d ]] =⇒ a ≤ d
proof apply(blast intro: le trans)
Also works for auto and fastforce

Can greatly increase the search space!

115
 Forward proof: OF
If r is a theorem A =⇒ B
and s is a theorem that unifies with A then

r[OF s]

is the theorem obtained by proving A with s.

Example: theorem refl: ?t = ?t

conjI[OF refl[of "a"]]

;
?Q =⇒ a = a ∧ ?Q

116
The general case:

If r is a theorem [[ A1 ; . . . ; An ]] =⇒ A
and r1 , . . . , rm (m≤n) are theorems then

r[OF r1 . . . rm ]

is the theorem obtained

by proving A1 . . . Am with r1 . . . rm .

Example: theorem refl: ?t = ?t

conjI[OF refl[of "a"] refl[of "b"]]

;
a=a∧b=b

117
From now on: ? mostly suppressed on slides

118
Single_Step_Demo.thy

119
 =⇒ versus −→

=⇒ is part of the Isabelle framework. It structures

theorems and proof states: [[ A1 ; . . . ; An ]] =⇒ A

−→ is part of HOL and can occur inside the logical

formulas Ai and A.
Phrase theorems like this [[ A1 ; . . . ; An ]] =⇒ A
not like this A1 ∧ . . . ∧ An −→ A

120
6 Logical Formulas

7 Proof Automation

8 Single Step Proofs

9 Inductive Definitions

121
 Example: even numbers
Informally:
• 0 is even
• If n is even, so is n + 2
• These are the only even numbers

In Isabelle/HOL:
inductive ev :: nat ⇒ bool
where
ev 0 |
ev n =⇒ ev (n + 2)

122
An easy proof: ev 4

ev 0 =⇒ ev 2 =⇒ ev 4

123
Consider
fun evn :: nat ⇒ bool where
evn 0 = True |
evn (Suc 0) = False |
evn (Suc (Suc n)) = evn n
A trickier proof: ev m =⇒ evn m
By induction on the structure of the derivation of ev m
Two cases: ev m is proved by
• rule ev 0
=⇒ m = 0 =⇒ evn m = True
• rule ev n =⇒ ev (n+2)
=⇒ m = n+2 and evn n (IH)
=⇒ evn m = evn (n+2) = evn n = True
124
 Rule induction for ev
To prove

ev n =⇒ P n

by rule induction on ev n we must prove

• P 0
• P n =⇒ P(n+2)

Rule ev.induct:
V
ev n P 0 n. [[ ev n; P n ]] =⇒ P(n+2)
Pn

125
 Format of inductive definitions

inductive I :: τ ⇒ bool where

[[ I a1 ; . . . ; I an ]] =⇒ I a |
..
.
Note:
• I may have multiple arguments.
• Each rule may also contain side conditions not
involving I.

126
 Rule induction in general
To prove

I x =⇒ P x

by rule induction on I x
we must prove for every rule

[[ I a1 ; . . . ; I an ]] =⇒ I a

that P is preserved:

[[ I a1 ; P a1 ; . . . ; I an ; P an ]] =⇒ P a

127
 Rule induction is absolutely central
! to (operational) semantics !
and the rest of this lecture course

128
Inductive_Demo.thy

129
 Inductively defined sets

inductive_set I :: τ set where

[[ a1 ∈ I; . . . ; an ∈ I ]] =⇒ a ∈ I |
..
.
Difference to inductive:
• arguments of I are tupled, not curried
• I can later be used with set theoretic operators,
eg I ∪ . . .

130
 Chapter 5

Isar: A Language for

Structured Proofs

131
10 Isar by example

11 Proof patterns

12 Streamlining Proofs

13 Proof by Cases and Induction

132
 Apply scripts

• unreadable
• hard to maintain
• do not scale

No structure!

133
 Apply scripts versus Isar proofs

Apply script = assembly language program

Isar proof = structured program with assertions

But: apply still useful for proof exploration

134
 A typical Isar proof

proof
assume formula 0
have formula 1 by simp
..
.
have formula n by blast
show formula n+1 by . . .
qed
proves formula 0 =⇒ formula n+1

135
 Isar core syntax
proof = proof [method] step∗ qed
| by method

method = (simp . . . ) | (blast . . . ) | (induction . . . ) | . . .

V
step = fix variables ( )
| assume prop (=⇒)
+
| [from fact ] (have | show) prop proof

prop = [name:] ”formula”

fact = name | . . .

136
10 Isar by example

11 Proof patterns

12 Streamlining Proofs

13 Proof by Cases and Induction

137
 Example: Cantor’s theorem
lemma ¬ surj(f :: 0a ⇒ 0a set)
proof default proof: assume surj, show False
assume a: surj f
from a have b: ∀ A. ∃ a. A = f a
by(simp add: surj def)
from b have c: ∃ a. {x. x ∈ / f x} = f a
by blast
from c show False
by blast
qed

138
Isar_Demo.thy

Cantor and abbreviations

139
 Abbreviations

this = the previous proposition proved or assumed

then = from this
thus = then show
hence = then have

140
 using and with

(have|show) prop using facts

=
from facts (have|show) prop

with facts
=
from facts this

141
 Structured lemma statement
lemma
fixes f :: 0a ⇒ 0a set
assumes s: surj f
shows False
proof − no automatic proof step
have ∃ a. {x. x ∈ / f x} = f a using s
by(auto simp: surj def)
thus False by blast
qed
Proves surj f =⇒ False
but surj f becomes local fact s in proof.

142
 The essence of structured proofs

Assumptions and intermediate facts

can be named and referred to explicitly and selectively

143
 Structured lemma statements

fixes x :: τ1 and y :: τ2 . . .
assumes a: P and b: Q . . .
shows R

• fixes and assumes sections optional

• shows optional if no fixes and assumes

144
10 Isar by example

11 Proof patterns

12 Streamlining Proofs

13 Proof by Cases and Induction

145
 Case distinction
show R have P ∨ Q . . .
proof cases then show R
assume P proof
..
. assume P
..
show R . . . .
next show R . . .
assume ¬ P next
..
. assume Q
show R . . . ..
.
qed show R . . .
qed
146
 Contradiction

show ¬ P show P
proof proof (rule ccontr)
assume P assume ¬P
.. ..
. .
show False . . . show False . . .
qed qed

147
 ←→
show P ←→ Q
proof
assume P
..
.
show Q . . .
next
assume Q
..
.
show P . . .
qed

148
 ∀ and ∃ introduction
show ∀ x. P(x)
proof
fix x local fixed variable
show P(x) . . .
qed

show ∃ x. P(x)
proof
..
.
show P(witness) . . .
qed
149
 ∃ elimination: obtain

have ∃ x. P(x)
then obtain x where p: P(x) by blast
..
. x fixed local variable

Works for one or more x

150
 obtain example

lemma ¬ surj(f :: 0a ⇒ 0a set)

proof
assume surj f
hence ∃ a. {x. x ∈
/ f x} = f a by(auto simp: surj def)
then obtain a where {x. x ∈ / f x} = f a by blast
hence a ∈ / f a ←→ a ∈ f a by blast
thus False by blast
qed

151
 Set equality and subset

show A = B show A ⊆ B
proof proof
show A ⊆ B . . . fix x
next assume x ∈ A
..
show B ⊆ A . . . .
qed show x ∈ B . . .
qed

152
Isar_Demo.thy

Exercise

153
10 Isar by example

11 Proof patterns

12 Streamlining Proofs

13 Proof by Cases and Induction

154
12 Streamlining Proofs
Pattern Matching and Quotations
Top down proof development
moreover
Raw proof blocks

155
 Example: pattern matching
show formula 1 ←→ formula 2 (is ?L ←→ ?R)
proof
assume ?L
..
.
show ?R . . .
next
assume ?R
..
.
show ?L . . .
qed

156
 ?thesis

show formula (is ?thesis)

proof -
..
.
show ?thesis . . .
qed

Every show implicitly defines ?thesis

157
 let

Introducing local abbreviations in proofs:

let ?t = "some-big-term"
..
.
have ". . . ?t . . . "

158
 Quoting facts by value
By name:
have x0: ”x > 0” . . .
..
.
from x0 . . .

By value:
have ”x > 0” . . .
..
.
from ‘x>0‘ . . .
↑ ↑
back quotes
159
 Isar_Demo.thy

Pattern matching and quotations

160
12 Streamlining Proofs
Pattern Matching and Quotations
Top down proof development
moreover
Raw proof blocks

161
 Example

lemma
(∃ ys zs. xs = ys @ zs ∧ length ys = length zs) ∨
(∃ ys zs. xs = ys @ zs ∧ length ys = length zs + 1)
proof ???

162
 Isar_Demo.thy

Top down proof development

163
 When automation fails
Split proof up into smaller steps.

Or explore by apply:
have . . . using . . .
apply - to make incoming facts
part of proof state
apply auto or whatever
apply . . .
At the end:
• done
• Better: convert to structured proof
164
12 Streamlining Proofs
Pattern Matching and Quotations
Top down proof development
moreover
Raw proof blocks

165
 moreover—ultimately
have P1 . . . have lab1 : P1 . . .
moreover have lab2 : P2 . . .
have P2 . . . ..
.
moreover ≈ have labn : Pn . . .
..
. from lab1 lab2 . . .
moreover have P ...
have Pn . . .
ultimately
have P . . .

With names

166
12 Streamlining Proofs
Pattern Matching and Quotations
Top down proof development
moreover
Raw proof blocks

167
 Raw proof blocks

{ fix x1 . . . xn
assume A1 . . . Am
..
.
have B
}
proves [[ A1 ; . . . ; Am ]] =⇒ B
where all xi have been replaced by ?xi .

168
Isar_Demo.thy

moreover and { }

169
 Proof state and Isar text
In general: proof method
Applies method and generates subgoal(s):
V
x1 . . . xn [[ A1 ; . . . ; Am ]] =⇒ B
How to prove each subgoal:
fix x1 . . . xn
assume A1 . . . Am
..
.
show B
Separated by next
170
10 Isar by example

11 Proof patterns

12 Streamlining Proofs

13 Proof by Cases and Induction

171
Isar_Induction_Demo.thy

Proof by cases

172
 Datatype case analysis
datatype t = C1 ~τ | . . .
proof (cases "term")
case (C1 x1 . . . xk )
. . . xj . . .
next
..
.
qed
where case (Ci x1 . . . xk ) ≡
fix x1 . . . xk
assume |{z} Ci : term = (Ci x1 . . . xk )
| {z }
label formula
173
Isar_Induction_Demo.thy

Structural induction for nat

174
 Structural induction for nat
show P(n)
proof (induction n)
case 0 ≡ let ?case = P (0)
..
.
show ?case
next
case (Suc n) ≡ fix n assume Suc: P (n)
..
.. let ?case = P (Suc n)
..
show ?case
qed

175
 Structural induction with =⇒
show A(n) =⇒ P(n)
proof (induction n)
case 0 ≡ assume 0: A(0)
..
. let ?case = P(0)
show ?case
next
case (Suc n) ≡ fix n
..
. assume Suc: A(n) =⇒ P(n)
A(Suc n)
..
. let ?case = P(Suc n)
show ?case
qed

176
 Named assumptions
In a proof of
A1 =⇒ . . . =⇒ An =⇒ B
by structural induction:
In the context of
case C
we have
C.IH the induction hypotheses
C.prems the premises Ai
C C.IH + C.prems

177
 A remark on style

• case (Suc n) . . . show ?case

is easy to write and maintain
• fix n assume formula . . . show formula 0
is easier to read:
• all information is shown locally
• no contextual references (e.g. ?case)

178
13 Proof by Cases and Induction
Rule Induction
Rule Inversion

179
Isar_Induction_Demo.thy

Rule induction

180
 Rule induction
inductive I :: τ ⇒ σ ⇒ bool show I x y =⇒ P x y
where proof (induction rule: I.induct)
rule1 : . . . case rule1
.. ...
.
rulen : . . . show ?case
next
..
.
next
case rulen
...
show ?case
qed

181
 Fixing your own variable names

case (rulei x1 . . . xk )

Renames the first k variables in rulei (from left to right)

to x1 . . . xk .

182
 Named assumptions
In a proof of
I . . . =⇒ A1 =⇒ . . . =⇒ An =⇒ B
by rule induction on I . . . :
In the context of
case R
we have
R.IH the induction hypotheses
R.hyps the assumptions of rule R
R.prems the premises Ai
R R.IH + R.hyps + R.prems
183
13 Proof by Cases and Induction
Rule Induction
Rule Inversion

184
 Rule inversion
inductive ev :: nat ⇒ bool where
ev0: ev 0 |
evSS: ev n =⇒ ev(Suc(Suc n))

What can we deduce from ev n ?

That it was proved by either ev0 or evSS !

ev n =⇒ n = 0 ∨ (∃ k. n = Suc (Suc k) ∧ ev k)

Rule inversion = case distinction over rules

185
Isar_Induction_Demo.thy

Rule inversion

186
 Rule inversion template
from ‘ev n‘ have P
proof cases
case ev0 n=0
..
.
show ?thesis . . .
next
case (evSS k) n = Suc (Suc k), ev k
..
.
show ?thesis . . .
qed

Impossible cases disappear automatically

187