* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

# Download Discrete Mathematics

Survey

Document related concepts

Gödel's incompleteness theorems wikipedia , lookup

Modal logic wikipedia , lookup

Analytic–synthetic distinction wikipedia , lookup

Axiom of reducibility wikipedia , lookup

History of logic wikipedia , lookup

History of the function concept wikipedia , lookup

Quantum logic wikipedia , lookup

Intuitionistic logic wikipedia , lookup

Curry–Howard correspondence wikipedia , lookup

Law of thought wikipedia , lookup

Truth-bearer wikipedia , lookup

Propositional calculus wikipedia , lookup

Laws of Form wikipedia , lookup

Mathematical logic wikipedia , lookup

Natural deduction wikipedia , lookup

Mathematical proof wikipedia , lookup

Transcript

Discrete Mathematics Jeremy Siek Spring 2010 Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 1 / 118 Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 2 / 118 Outline of Lecture 1 1. Course Information 2. Overview of Discrete Mathematics Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 2 / 118 Course Information I Class web page: http://ecee.colorado.edu/~siek/ecen3703/spring10 I Textbooks: I I I I I Discrete Mathematics and its Applications, 6th Edition, by Rosen. (At the CU bookstore.) A Tutorial Introduction to Structured Isar Proofs, by Nipkow. (Available online.) Isabelle/HOL – A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic, by Nipkow, Paulson, and Wenzel. (Available online.) How to Prove It: A Structured Approach, by Daniel J. Velleman. Grading: Quizzes Midterm exam Final exam 30% 30% 40% Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 3 / 118 Course Information: Homework I There are weekly homework assignments. I The quizzes and exams are based on the homework. I Every students gets a personal tutor named Isabelle. Isabelle is a logic language, a programming language, and a most importantly, a proof checker. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/hvg/Isabelle/ I You know your proofs are correct when you convince Isabelle. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 4 / 118 Overview of Discrete Mathematics Discrete Mathematics Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 5 / 118 Mathematics I What is Math anyways? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 6 / 118 Mathematics I What is Math anyways? I Is it the study of numbers? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 6 / 118 Mathematics I What is Math anyways? I Is it the study of numbers? Mathematics is actually much more broad. I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 6 / 118 Mathematics I What is Math anyways? I Is it the study of numbers? Mathematics is actually much more broad. I Definition Mathematics is the study of any truth regarding well-defined concepts. Numbers are just one kind of well-defined concept. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 6 / 118 Discrete Definition Something is discrete if is it composed of distinct, separable parts. (In contrast to continuous.) Discrete integers graphs state machines digital computer quantum physics Jeremy Siek Continuous real numbers rational numbers differential equations radios Newtonian physics Discrete Mathematics 7 / 118 Discrete Mathematics Definition Discrete Mathematics is the study of any truth regarding discrete entities. I I That’s pretty broad. So what is it really? Discrete math is the foundation for the rigorous understanding of computer systems. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 8 / 118 A Discrete Problem: Sudoku 3 7 9 1 3 1 5 6 I 6 8 7 3 7 9 6 9 4 3 2 3 8 2 2 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 2 7 1 4 9 3 8 2 1 4 What are the rules of Sudoku? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 9 / 118 A Discrete Problem: Sudoku 3 7 9 1 3 1 5 6 I I 6 8 7 3 7 9 6 9 4 3 2 3 8 2 2 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 2 7 1 4 9 3 8 2 1 4 What are the rules of Sudoku? Spend the next few minutes filling in this board. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 9 / 118 A Discrete Problem: Sudoku 3 7 9 1 3 1 5 6 I I I 6 8 7 3 7 9 6 9 4 3 2 3 8 2 2 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 2 7 1 4 9 3 8 2 1 4 What are the rules of Sudoku? Spend the next few minutes filling in this board. Write down the rules of Sudoku on a sheet of paper. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 9 / 118 A Discrete Problem: Sudoku 3 7 9 1 3 1 5 6 I I I I 6 8 7 3 7 9 6 9 4 3 2 3 8 2 2 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 2 7 1 4 9 3 8 2 1 4 What are the rules of Sudoku? Spend the next few minutes filling in this board. Write down the rules of Sudoku on a sheet of paper. Pass your paper to the person on your right. Are the rules that you’ve been passed correct? If not, give an example. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 9 / 118 Abstracting Sudoku 3 7 9 1 3 1 5 6 8 I I I 7 3 7 9 6 9 4 3 2 3 8 2 6 2 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 2 7 1 4 9 3 8 2 1 4 What aspects of the game of Sudoku don’t really matter? What could you change such that an expert Sudoku player would immediately be an expert of the modified game? What aspects of the game really matter? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 10 / 118 Sudoku Solver 3 7 9 1 3 1 5 6 8 I I I I I 7 3 7 9 6 9 4 3 2 3 8 2 6 2 6 7 7 4 3 5 8 2 2 7 1 4 9 3 8 2 1 4 Write down a pseudo-code algorithm for solving Soduku. What data structures did you use? What kind of algorithm did you use? Does your algorithm always solve the puzzle? How long does your algorithm take to finish in the worst case? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 11 / 118 Why Study Discrete Mathematics? I It’s the basic language used to discuss computer systems. You need to learn the language if you want to converse with other computer professionals. I It’s a toolbox full of the problem-solving techniques that you will use over and over in your career. I But best of all, studying discrete math will enhance your mind, turning it into a high-precision machine! Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 12 / 118 Uses of Discrete Math are Everywhere I Circuit design Computer architecture I Computer networks I Operating systems I Programming: algorithms and data structures I Programming languages Computer security, encryption I I I Error correcting codes Graphics algorithms, game engines I ... I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 13 / 118 Themes in Discrete Math Mathematical Reasoning: read, understand, and create precise arguments. Discrete Structures: model discrete systems and study their properties. Algorithmic Thinking: create algorithms, verify that they work, analyze their time and space requirements. Combinatorial Analysis: counting (not always as easy as it sounds!) Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 14 / 118 Advice I Read in advance. I I Do the homework. Form a study group. I Form an intense love/hate relationship with Isabelle. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 15 / 118 Outline of Lecture 2 1. Propositional Logic 2. Syntax and Meaning of Propositional Logic Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 16 / 118 Logic I Logic defines the ground rules for establishing truths. I Mathematical logic spells out these rules in complete detail, defining what constitutes a formal proof. Learning mathematical logic is a good way to learn logic because it puts you on a firm foundation. Writing formal proofs in mathematical logic is a lot like computer programming. The rules of the game are clearly defined. I I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 17 / 118 Propositional Logic I Propositional logic is a language that abstracts away from content and focuses on the logical connectives. I Uppercase letters like P and Q are meta-variables that are placeholders for propositions. The following rules define what is a proposition. I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 18 / 118 Propositional Logic I Propositional logic is a language that abstracts away from content and focuses on the logical connectives. I Uppercase letters like P and Q are meta-variables that are placeholders for propositions. The following rules define what is a proposition. I I A propositional variable (lowercase letters p, q, r) is a proposition. These variables model true/false statements. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 18 / 118 Propositional Logic I Propositional logic is a language that abstracts away from content and focuses on the logical connectives. I Uppercase letters like P and Q are meta-variables that are placeholders for propositions. The following rules define what is a proposition. I I I A propositional variable (lowercase letters p, q, r) is a proposition. These variables model true/false statements. The negation of a proposition P, written ¬ P, is a proposition. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 18 / 118 Propositional Logic I Propositional logic is a language that abstracts away from content and focuses on the logical connectives. I Uppercase letters like P and Q are meta-variables that are placeholders for propositions. The following rules define what is a proposition. I I I I A propositional variable (lowercase letters p, q, r) is a proposition. These variables model true/false statements. The negation of a proposition P, written ¬ P, is a proposition. The conjunction (and) of two propositions, written P ∧ Q, is a proposition. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 18 / 118 Propositional Logic I Propositional logic is a language that abstracts away from content and focuses on the logical connectives. I Uppercase letters like P and Q are meta-variables that are placeholders for propositions. The following rules define what is a proposition. I I I I I A propositional variable (lowercase letters p, q, r) is a proposition. These variables model true/false statements. The negation of a proposition P, written ¬ P, is a proposition. The conjunction (and) of two propositions, written P ∧ Q, is a proposition. The disjunction (or) of two propositions, written P ∨ Q, is a proposition. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 18 / 118 Propositional Logic I Propositional logic is a language that abstracts away from content and focuses on the logical connectives. I Uppercase letters like P and Q are meta-variables that are placeholders for propositions. The following rules define what is a proposition. I I I I I I A propositional variable (lowercase letters p, q, r) is a proposition. These variables model true/false statements. The negation of a proposition P, written ¬ P, is a proposition. The conjunction (and) of two propositions, written P ∧ Q, is a proposition. The disjunction (or) of two propositions, written P ∨ Q, is a proposition. The conditional statement (implies), written P −→ Q, is a proposition. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 18 / 118 Propositional Logic I Propositional logic is a language that abstracts away from content and focuses on the logical connectives. I Uppercase letters like P and Q are meta-variables that are placeholders for propositions. The following rules define what is a proposition. I I I I I I I A propositional variable (lowercase letters p, q, r) is a proposition. These variables model true/false statements. The negation of a proposition P, written ¬ P, is a proposition. The conjunction (and) of two propositions, written P ∧ Q, is a proposition. The disjunction (or) of two propositions, written P ∨ Q, is a proposition. The conditional statement (implies), written P −→ Q, is a proposition. The Boolean values True and False are propositions. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 18 / 118 Propositional Logic I I I Different authors include different logical connectives in their definitions of Propositional Logic. However, these differences are not important. In each case, the missing connectives can be defined in terms of the connectives that are present. For example, I left out exclusive or, P ⊕ Q, but P ⊕ Q = (P ∧ ¬ Q) ∨ ¬ P ∧ Q Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 19 / 118 Propositional Logic I I How expressive is Propositional Logic? Can you write down the rules for Sudoku in Propositional Logic? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 20 / 118 Propositional Logic I I How expressive is Propositional Logic? Can you write down the rules for Sudoku in Propositional Logic? I It’s rather difficult if not impossible to express the rules of Sudoku in Propositional Logic. I But Propositional Logic is a good first step towards more powerful logics. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 20 / 118 Meaning of Propositions I A truth assignment maps propositional variables to True or False. The following is an example: A ≡ {p 7→ True, q 7→ False, r 7→ True} A(p) = True I A(q) = False A(r) = True The meaning of a proposition is a function from truth assignments to True or False. We use the notation JP K for the meaning of proposition P . JpK(A) = A(p) ( True if JP K(A) = False J¬P K(A) = False otherwise Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 21 / 118 Meaning of Propositions, cont’d ( True JP ∧ QK(A) = False ( False JP ∨ QK(A) = True ( False JP −→ QK(A) = True if JP K(A) = True, JQK(A) = True otherwise if JP K(A) = False, JQK(A) = False otherwise if JP K(A) = True, JQK(A) = False otherwise Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 22 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I JpK(A) = True Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jp ∧ pK(A) = True Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jp ∧ pK(A) = True Jp ∧ qK(A) = False Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I I I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jp ∧ pK(A) = True Jp ∧ qK(A) = False Jp ∨ qK(A) = True Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I I I I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jp ∧ pK(A) = True Jp ∧ qK(A) = False Jp ∨ qK(A) = True Jp −→ pK(A) = True Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I I I I I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jp ∧ pK(A) = True Jp ∧ qK(A) = False Jp ∨ qK(A) = True Jp −→ pK(A) = True Jq −→ pK(A) = True Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I I I I I I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jp ∧ pK(A) = True Jp ∧ qK(A) = False Jp ∨ qK(A) = True Jp −→ pK(A) = True Jq −→ pK(A) = True Jp −→ qK(A) = False Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Example Propositions Suppose A = {p 7→ True, q 7→ False}. I I I I I I I I I JpK(A) = True JqK(A) = False Jp ∧ pK(A) = True Jp ∧ qK(A) = False Jp ∨ qK(A) = True Jp −→ pK(A) = True Jq −→ pK(A) = True Jp −→ qK(A) = False J(p ∨ q) −→ qK(A) = False Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 23 / 118 Tautologies Definition A tautology is a proposition that is true in any truth assignment. Examples: I p −→ p q ∨ ¬q I (p ∧ q) −→ (p ∨ q) I There are two ways to show that a proposition is a tautology: 1. Check the meaning of the proposition for every possible truth assignment. This is called model checking. 2. Contruct a proof that the proposition is a tautology. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 24 / 118 Model Checking I One way to simplify the checking is to only consider truth assignments that include the variables that matter. For example, to check p −→ p, we only need to consider two truth assignments. 1. A1 = {p 7→ True}, Jp −→ pK(A1 ) = True 2. A2 = {p 7→ False}Jp −→ pK(A2 ) = True I I However, in real systems there are many variables, and the number of possible truth assignments grows quickly: it is 2n for n variables. There are many researchers dedicated to discovering algorithms that speed up model checking. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 25 / 118 Stuff to Rememeber Propositional Logic: I The kinds of propositions. The meaning of propositions. I How to check that a proposition is a tautology. I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 26 / 118 Outline of Lecture 3 1. Proofs and Isabelle 2. Proof Strategy, Forward and Backwards Reasoning 3. Making Mistakes Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 27 / 118 Theorems and Proofs I In the context of propositional logic, a theorem is just a tautology. I In this course, we’ll be writing theorems and their proofs in the Isabelle/Isar proof language. I Here’s the syntax for a theorem in Isabelle/Isar. theorem "P" proof step 1 step 2 .. . I step n qed Each step applies an inference rule to establish the truth of some proposition. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 28 / 118 Inference Rules I When applying inference rules, use the keyword have to establish intermediate truths and use the keyword show to conclude the surrounding theorem or sub-proof. I Most inference rules can be categorized as either an introduction or elimination rule. I Introduction rules are for creating bigger propositions. I Elimination rules are for using propositions. We write “Li proves P ” if there is a preceeding step or assumption in the proof that is labeled Li and whose proposition is P . I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 29 / 118 Introduction Rules And If Li proves P and Lj proves Q, then write from Li Lj have Lk : "P ∧ Q" .. Or (1) If Li proves P , then write from Li have Lk : "P ∨ Q" .. Or (2) If Li proves Q, then write from Li have Lk : "P ∨ Q" .. Implies have Lk : "P −→ Q" proof assume Li : "P" .. . · · · show "Q" · · · qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 30 / 118 Introduction Rules, cont’d Not have Lk : "¬ P" proof assume Li : "P" .. . · · · show "False" · · · qed Hint: The Appendix of our text Isabelle/HOL – A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic lists the logical connectives, such as −→ and ¬, and for each of them gives two ways to input them as ASCI text. If you use Emacs (or XEmacs) to edit your Isabelle files, then the x-symbol package can be used to display the logic connectives in their traditional form. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 31 / 118 Using Assumptions I Sometimes the thing you need to prove is already an assumption. In this case your job is really easy! I If Li proves P , write from Li have "P" . Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 32 / 118 Example Proof theorem "p −→ p" proof show "p −→ p" proof assume 1: "p" from 1 show "p" . qed qed Instead of proof -, you can apply the introduction rule right away. theorem "p −→ p" proof assume 1: "p" from 1 show "p" . qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 33 / 118 Exercise theorem "p −→ (p ∧ p)" Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 34 / 118 Solution theorem "p −→ (p ∧ p)" proof assume 1: "p" from 1 1 show "p ∧ p" .. qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 35 / 118 Elimination Rules And (1) If Li proves P ∧ Q, then write from Li have Lk : "P" .. And (2) If Li proves P ∧ Q, then write from Li have Lk : "Q" .. Or If Li proves P ∨ Q, then write note Li moreover { assume Lj : "P" .. . · · · have "R" · · · } moreover { assume Lm : "Q" .. . · · · have "R" · · · } ultimately have Lk : "R" .. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 36 / 118 Elimination Rules, cont’d Implies If Li proves P −→ Q and Lj proves P , then write from Li Lj have Lk : "Q" .. (This rule is known as modus ponens.) Not If Li proves ¬P and Lj proves P , then write from Li Lj have Lk : "Q" .. False If Li proves False, then write from Li have Lk : "P" .. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 37 / 118 Example Proof theorem "(p ∧ q) −→ (p ∨ q)" proof assume 1: "p ∧ q" from 1 have 2: "p" .. from 2 show "p ∨ q" .. qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 38 / 118 Another Proof theorem "(p ∨ q) ∧ (p −→ r) ∧ (q −→ r) −→ r" proof assume 1: "(p ∨ q) ∧ (p −→ r) ∧ (q −→ r)" from 1 have 2: "p ∨ q" .. from 1 have 3: "(p −→ r) ∧ (q −→ r)" .. from 3 have 4: "p −→ r" .. from 3 have 5: "q −→ r" .. note 2 moreover { assume 6: "p" from 4 6 have "r" .. } moreover { assume 7: "q" from 5 7 have "r" .. } ultimately show "r" .. qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 39 / 118 Exercise theorem "(p −→ q) ∧ (q −→ r) −→ (p −→ r)" Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 40 / 118 Solution theorem "(p −→ q) ∧ (q −→ r) −→ (p −→ r)" proof assume 1: "(p −→ q) ∧ (q −→ r)" from 1 have 2: "p −→ q" .. from 1 have 3: "q −→ r" .. show "p −→ r" proof assume 4: "p" from 2 4 have 5: "q" .. from 3 5 show "r" .. qed qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 41 / 118 Forward and Backwards Reasoning And-Intro (forward) If Li proves P and Lj proves Q, then write from Li Lj have Lk : "P ∧ Q" .. And-Intro (backwards) have Lk : "P ∧ Q" proof .. . · · · show "P" · · · next .. . · · · show "Q" · · · qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 42 / 118 Forward and Backwards Reasoning, cont’d Or-Intro (1) (forwards) If Li proves P , then write from Li have Lk : "P ∨ Q" .. Or-Intro (1) (backwards) have Lk : "P ∨ Q" proof (rule disjI1) .. . · · · show "P" · · · qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 43 / 118 Forward and Backwards Reasoning, cont’d Or-Intro (2) (forwards) If Li proves Q, then write from Li have Lk : "P ∨ Q" .. Or-Intro (2) (backwards) have Lk : "P ∨ Q" proof (rule disjI2) .. . · · · show "Q" · · · qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 44 / 118 Strategy I Let the proposition you’re trying to prove guide your proof. I Find the top-most logical connective. I Apply the introduction rule, backwards, for that connective. I Keep doing that until what you need to prove no longer contains any logical connectives. I Then work forwards from your assumptions (using elimination rules) until you’ve proved what you need. Forwards Reasoning Assumption Backwards Reasoning Conclusion Assumption Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 45 / 118 Making Mistakes I To err is human. I Isabelle will catch your mistakes. I Unfortunately, Isabelle is bad at describing your mistake. I Consider the following attempted proof theorem "p −→ (p ∧ p)" proof show "p −→ (p ∧ p)" proof assume 1: "p" from 1 show "p ∧ p" I When Isabelle gets to from 1 show "p ∧ p" (adding .. at the end), it gives the following response: Failed to finish proof At command "..". Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 46 / 118 Making Mistakes, cont’d I In this case, the mistake was a missing label in the from clause. Conjuction introduction requires two premises, not one. Here’s the fix: theorem "p −→ (p ∧ p)" proof show "p −→ (p ∧ p)" proof assume 1: "p" from 1 1 show "p ∧ p" .. qed qed I When Isablle says “no”, double check the inference rule. If that doesn’t work, get a classmate to look at it. If that doesn’t work, email the instructor with the minimal Isabelle file that exhibits your problem. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 47 / 118 Making Mistakes, cont’d I Here’s another proof with a typo: theorem "p −→ p" proof assume 1: "p" from 1 show "q" . qed I Isabelle responds with: Local statement will fail to refine any pending goal Failed attempt to solve goal by exported rule : (p) =⇒ q At command " show ". I The problem here is that the proposition in the show "q", does not match what we are trying to prove, which is p. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 48 / 118 Stuff to Rememeber I How to write Isabelle/Isar proofs of tautologies in Propositional Logic. The introduction and elimination rules. I Forwards and backwards reasoning. I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 49 / 118 Outline of Lecture 4 1. Overview of First-Order Logic 2. Beyond Booleans: natural numbers, integers, etc. 3. Universal truths: “for all” 4. Existential truths: “there exists” Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 50 / 118 Overview of First-Order Logic I First-order logic is an extension of propositional logic, adding the ability to reason about well-defined entities and operations. I Isabelle provides many entities, such as natural numbers, integers, and lists. I Isabelle also provides the means to define new entities and their operations. I First-order logic adds two new kinds of propositions, “for all” (∀) and “there exists” (∃), that enable quantification over these entities. I For example, first-order logic can express ∀x :: nat. x = x. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 51 / 118 Beyond Booleans I Natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, . . . I Integers: . . . , −1, 0, 1, . . . I How does Isabelle know the difference between 0 (the natural number) and 0 (the integer)? I I Sometimes it can tell from context, sometimes it can’t. (When it can’t, you’ll see things like 0::’a) You can help Isabelle by giving a type annotation, such as 0 or 0. I We use natural numbers a lot, integers not so much. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 52 / 118 Natural Numbers I There’s only two ways to construct a natural number: I I I 0 If n is a natural number, then so is Suc n. (Suc is for successor. Think of Suc n as n + 1.) Isabelle provides shorthands for numerals: I I I 1 = Suc 0 2 = Suc (Suc 0) 3 = Suc (Suc (Suc 0)) Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 53 / 118 Arithmetic on Natural Numbers I Isabelle provides arithmetic operations and many other functions on natural numbers. I Warning: arithmetic on naturals is sometimes similar and sometimes different than integers. See /Isabelle/src/HOL/Nat.thy. I For example, 1+1−2=0 1−2+1=1 Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 54 / 118 Universal Truths I How do we express that a property is true for all natural numbers? I Let P be some proposition that may mention n, then the following is a proposition: ∀ n. P I Example: I I ∀ i j k. i + (j + k) = i + j + k ∀ i j k. i = j ∧ j = k −→ i = k Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 55 / 118 Introduction and Elimination Rules For all-Intro have Lk : "∀ n. proof fix n .. . P" · · · show "P" · · · qed For all-Elim If Li proves ∀ n. P, then write from Li have Lk : "[n7→m]P" .. where m is any entity of the same type as n. The notation [n7→m]P (called substitution) refers to the proposition that is the same as P except that all free occurences of n in P are replaced by m. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 56 / 118 Substitution I [x 7→ 1]x = 1 Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 57 / 118 Substitution I [x 7→ 1]x = 1 I [x 7→ 1]y = y Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 57 / 118 Substitution I [x 7→ 1]x = 1 I [x 7→ 1]y = y [x 7→ 1](x ∧ y) = (1 ∧ y) I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 57 / 118 Substitution I [x 7→ 1]x = 1 I I [x 7→ 1]y = y [x 7→ 1](x ∧ y) = (1 ∧ y) I [x 7→ 1](∀y. x) = (∀y. 1) Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 57 / 118 Substitution I [x 7→ 1]x = 1 I I [x 7→ 1]y = y [x 7→ 1](x ∧ y) = (1 ∧ y) I [x 7→ 1](∀y. x) = (∀y. 1) I [x 7→ 1](∀x. x) = (∀x. x) (The x under ∀x is not free, it is bound by ∀x.) Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 57 / 118 Substitution I [x 7→ 1]x = 1 I I [x 7→ 1]y = y [x 7→ 1](x ∧ y) = (1 ∧ y) I [x 7→ 1](∀y. x) = (∀y. 1) I [x 7→ 1](∀x. x) = (∀x. x) (The x under ∀x is not free, it is bound by ∀x.) [x 7→ 1]((∀x.x) ∧ x) = ((∀x. x) ∧ 1) I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 57 / 118 Example Proof using ∀ theorem assumes 1: "∀ x. man(x) −→ human(x)" and 2: "∀ x. human(x) −→ hastwolegs(x)" shows "∀ x. man(x) −→ hastwolegs(x)" proof fix m show "man(m) −→ hastwolegs(m)" proof assume 3: "man(m)" from 1 have 4: "man(m) −→ human(m)" .. from 4 3 have 5: "human(m)" .. from 2 have 6: "human(m) −→ hastwolegs(m)" .. from 6 5 show "hastwolegs(m)" .. qed qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 58 / 118 Exercise using ∀ Prove the universal modus ponens rule in Isabelle: (∀ x. P x −→ Q x) ∧ P a −→ Q a Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 59 / 118 Example of Proof by Cases theorem fixes n::nat shows "n ≤ n^2" proof (cases n) case 0 have 1: "(0::nat) ≤ 0^2" by simp from 1 show "n ≤ n^2" by (simp only: 0) next case (Suc m) have "Suc m ≤ (Suc m) * (Suc m)" by simp also have ". . . = (Suc m)^2" by (rule Groebner_Basis.class_semiring.semiring_rules) finally have 1: "Suc m ≤ (Suc m)^2" . from 1 show "n ≤ n^2" by (simp only: Suc) qed I The fixes is like a ∀ for the variable n. I The by simp performs arithmetic and equational reasoning. I The also/finally combination provides a shorthand for equational reasoning. The . . . stands for the right-hand side of the previous line. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 60 / 118 Existential Truths I How do we express that a property is true “for some” natural number? I Or equivalenty, expressing that “there exists” a natural number with the property. I Let P be some proposition that may mention variable n, then the following is a proposition: ∃ n. P Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 61 / 118 Introduction and Elimination Rules for ∃ Exists-Intro If Li proves P , then write from Li have Lk : "∃ n.P" .. Exists-Elim If Li proves ∃ n. P, then write from Li obtain m where Lk : "[n7→m]P" .. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 62 / 118 Exercise Proof Using ∃ Given the following definitions: even(n) ≡ ∃m. n = 2m odd(n) ≡ ∃m. n = 2m + 1 Prove on paper that if n and m are odd, then n + m is even. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 63 / 118 Proof Using ∃ Theorem If n and m are odd, then n + m is even. Proof. Because n is odd, there exists a k where n = 2k + 1. Because m is odd, there exists a q where m = 2q + 1. So n + m = 2k + 2q + 2 = 2(k + q + 1). Thus ∃p. n + m = 2p, and by definition, n + m is even. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 64 / 118 Isabelle Definitions definition even :: "nat ⇒ bool" where "even n ≡ ∃ m. n = 2 * m" definition odd :: "nat ⇒ bool" where "odd n ≡ ∃ m. n = 2 * m + 1" I definition is a way to create simple functions. I Definitions may not be recursive. by simp does not automatically unfold definitions, need to use unfolding (see next slide). I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 65 / 118 Proof In Isabelle Using Definitions and ∃ theorem assumes 1: "odd n" and 2: "odd m" shows "even (n + m)" proof from 1 have 3: "∃ k. n = 2 * k + 1" unfolding from 3 obtain k where 4: "n = 2 * k + 1" .. from 2 have 5: "∃ q. m = 2 * q + 1" unfolding from 5 obtain q where 6: "m = 2 * q + 1" .. from 4 6 have 7: "n + m = 2 * (k + q + 1)" by from 7 have 8: "∃ p. n + m = 2 * p" .. from 8 show "even (n + m)" unfolding even_def qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics odd_def . odd_def . simp . 66 / 118 First-Order Logic over Natural Numbers I How expressive is First-Order Logic over Natural Numbers? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 67 / 118 First-Order Logic over Natural Numbers I How expressive is First-Order Logic over Natural Numbers? I Can you write down the rules for Sudoku? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 67 / 118 First-Order Logic over Natural Numbers I How expressive is First-Order Logic over Natural Numbers? I Can you write down the rules for Sudoku? What’s missing? I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 67 / 118 Stuff to Rememeber I I I I First-Order Logic adds the ability to reason about well-defined entities and adds ∀ and ∃. Natural numbers. Proof rules for ∀ and ∃. New from Isabelle: by simp, also/finally, unfolding, fix, obtain/where, definition. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 68 / 118 Outline of Lecture 5 1. Proof by induction 2. Functions, defined by primitive recursion Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 69 / 118 Induction I I I Induction is the primary way we prove universal truths about entities of unbounded size (like natural numbers). (If the size is bounded, then we can do proof by cases.) Induction is also the way we define things about entities of unbounded size. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 70 / 118 Motivation: Dominos I Domino Principle: Line up any number of dominos in a row; knock the first one over and they all fall down. Let Fk be the statement that the kth domino falls. We know that, for any k, if Fk falls down, then so does Fk+1 . I We knock down F0 . I It’s clear that for any n, Fn falls down, i.e., ∀n. Fn . I I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 71 / 118 Mathematical Induction To show that some property P is universally true of natural numbers ∀ n. P n you need to prove I P 0 I ∀ n. P n −→ P (n + 1) Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 72 / 118 Example Proof by Mathematical Induction Theorem ∀n. 0 + 1 + · · · + n = n(n+1) . 2 Proof. The proof is by mathematical induction on n. 0(0+1) , 2 I Base Step: We need to show that 0 = I Inductive Step: The inductive hypothesis (IH) is 0 + 1 + · · · + n = n(n+1) . 2 but that’s obviously true. n(n + 1) (by the IH) 2 2(n + 1) + n(n + 1) (n + 1)(n + 2) = = 2 2 (n + 1)((n + 1) + 1) = . 2 0 + 1 + · · · + n + (n + 1) = (n + 1) + Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 73 / 118 Primitive Recursive Functions in Isabelle I First, we need to express 0 + 1 + · · · + n in Isabelle. We can define a function that sums up the natural numbers. I Isabelle provides a mechanism, called primrec, for defining simple recursive functions. I There is one clause in the primrec for each way of creating the input value. (Recall the two ways to create a natural.) You may recursively call the function on a sub-part of the input, in this case the n within Suc n. In Isabelle, function call doesn’t require parenthesis, just list the argumetns after the function. The ⇒ symbol is for function types. The input type (the domain) is to the left of the arrow and the output type (the codomain) is to the right. I I primrec sumto :: "nat ⇒ nat" where "sumto 0 = 0" | "sumto (Suc n) = Suc n + sumto n" Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 74 / 118 Mathematical Induction in Isabelle theorem "sumto n = (n*(n + 1)) div 2" proof (induct n) show "sumto 0 = 0*(0 + 1) div 2" by simp next fix n assume IH: "sumto n = n*(n + 1) div 2" have "sumto(Suc n) = Suc n + sumto n" by simp also from IH have ". . . = Suc n + (n*(n+1) div 2)" by simp also have ". . . = (Suc n * (Suc n + 1)) div 2" by simp finally show "sumto(Suc n) = (Suc n * (Suc n + 1)) div 2" . qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 75 / 118 Tower of Hanoi I Can you move all of the discs from peg A to peg C? I Complication: you are not allowed to put larger discs on top of smaller discs. A I B C How long does your algorithm take? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 76 / 118 Tower of Hanoi, cont’d A I B C Algorithm: To move n discs from peg A to peg C: 1. Move n − 1 discs from A to B. 2. Move disc #n from A to C. 3. Move n − 1 discs from B to C so they sit on disc #n. I Let’s characterize the number of moves needed for a tower of n discs. T (0) = 0 T (n) = 2T (n − 1) + 1 Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 77 / 118 Tower of Hanoi, cont’d T (0) = 0 T (n) = 2T (n − 1) + 1 I The above is an example of a recurrence relation. I It’s a valid definition, but a bit difficult to understand and a bit expensive to evaluate (suppose n is large!). Can you think of a non-recursive expression for T (n)? Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 78 / 118 Tower of Hanoi, cont’d T (0) = 0 T (n) = 2T (n − 1) + 1 I The above is an example of a recurrence relation. I It’s a valid definition, but a bit difficult to understand and a bit expensive to evaluate (suppose n is large!). Can you think of a non-recursive expression for T (n)? I Here’s a closed form solution: T (n) = 2n − 1 I On paper, prove that the closed form solution is correct. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 78 / 118 Exercise, Tower of Hanoi in Isabelle I Create a primrec for T (n). T (0) = 0 T (n) = 2T (n − 1) + 1 I I I Prove that T (n) = 2n − 1 in Isabelle. In addition to by simp, you will need to use by arith, which performs slightly more advanced arithmetical reasoning. Hint: if Isabelle rejects one of the steps in your proof, try creating a new step that is a smaller “distance” from the previous step. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 79 / 118 Solution for Tower of Hanoi primrec moves :: "nat ⇒ nat" where "moves 0 = 0" | "moves (Suc n) = 2 * (moves n) + 1" theorem "moves n = 2^n - 1" proof (induct n) show "moves 0 = 2^0 - 1" by simp next fix n assume IH: "moves n = 2 ^ n - 1" have 1: "(2::nat) ≤ 2 ^ (Suc n)" by simp have "moves (Suc n) = 2 * (moves n) + 1" by simp also from IH have ". . . = 2 * ((2 ^ n) - 1) + 1" by simp also have ". . . = 2 ^ (Suc n) - 2 + 1" by simp also from 1 have ". . . = 2 ^ (Suc n) - 1" by arith finally show "moves (Suc n) = 2 ^ (Suc n) - 1" . qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 80 / 118 Stuff to Rememeber I I Mathematical induction. New from Isabelle: by arith, primrec. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 81 / 118 Outline of Lecture 6 1. More proof by induction and recursive functions 2. Repeated function composition example. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 82 / 118 Some Suggestions 1. Use a peice of scratch paper to sketch out the main ideas of the proof. 2. Dedicate one part of the paper to things that you know (assumptions, stuff you’ve proven), 3. Dedicate another part of the paper to things that you’d like to know. 4. After your sketch is complete, write a nicely organized and clean version of the proof. 5. Now let’s look at more examples of induction. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 83 / 118 Repeated Function Composition primrec rep :: "(’a ⇒ ’a) ⇒ nat ⇒ ’a ⇒ ’a" "rep f 0 x = x" | "rep f (Suc n) x = rep f n (f x)" Jeremy Siek where Discrete Mathematics 84 / 118 First Attempt theorem rep_add: "rep f (m + n) x = rep f n (rep f m x)" proof (induct m) show "rep f (0 + n) x = rep f n (rep f 0 x)" by simp next fix k assume IH: "rep f (k + n) x = rep f n (rep f k x)" have "rep f ((Suc k) + n) x = rep f (Suc (k + n)) x" by simp also have ". . . = rep f (k + n) (f x)" by simp — Stuck, we can’t apply the IH. We need to add a “forall” for x. show "rep f ((Suc k) + n) x = rep f n (rep f (Suc k) x)" oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 85 / 118 Generalized Theorem theorem rep_add: "∀ x. rep f (m + n) x = rep f n (rep f m x)" proof (induct m) show "∀ x. rep f (0 + n) x = rep f n (rep f 0 x)" by simp next fix k assume IH: "∀ x. rep f (k + n) x = rep f n (rep f k x)" show "∀ x. rep f ((Suc k) + n) x = rep f n (rep f (Suc k) x)" proof fix x have "rep f ((Suc k) + n) x = rep f (Suc (k + n)) x" by simp also have ". . . = rep f (k + n) (f x)" by simp also from IH have ". . . = rep f n (rep f k (f x))" by simp finally show "rep f ((Suc k)+n) x = rep f n (rep f (Suc k) x)" by simp qed qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 86 / 118 Repeated Function, Difference theorem rep_diff: assumes nm: "n ≤ m" shows "rep f (m - n) (rep f n x) = rep f m x" oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 87 / 118 Repeated Function, Difference This proof is easy, a direct consequence of the rep add theorem. theorem rep_diff: assumes nm: "n ≤ m" shows "rep f (m - n) (rep f n x) = rep f m x" proof from nm have 1: "n + (m - n) = m" by simp from 1 show "rep f (m - n) (rep f n x) = rep f m x" using rep_add[of f n "m - n"] by simp qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 88 / 118 Outline of Lecture 7 1. In class exercise concerning repeated function composition Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 89 / 118 Repeated Function, Cycle I Which natural number should we do induction on, m or n? I Sometimes you just have to try both and see which one works. Sometimes you can foresee which one is better. I lemma rep_cycle: "rep f n x = x −→ rep f (m*n) x = x" oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 90 / 118 Repeated Function, Cycle Let’s try to do induction on n. lemma rep_cycle: "rep f n x = x −→ rep f (m*n) x = x" proof (induct n) show "rep f 0 x = x −→ rep f (m*0) x = x" by simp next fix k assume IH: "rep f k x = x −→ rep f (m*k) x = x" show "rep f (Suc k) x = x −→ rep f (m*(Suc k)) x = x" proof assume 1: "rep f (Suc k) x = x" — Problem: we can’t use the IH because we can’t prove that rep f k x = x oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 91 / 118 Repeated Function, Cycle Now let’s try induction on m. lemma rep_cycle: "rep f n x = x −→ rep f (m*n) x = x" proof (induct m) show "rep f n x = x −→ rep f (0*n) x = x" proof assume "rep f n x = x" — We dont’ use this assumption show "rep f (0*n) x = x" by simp qed next fix k assume IH: "rep f n x = x −→ rep f (k*n) x = x" show "rep f n x = x −→ rep f ((Suc k)*n) x = x" proof assume 1: "rep f n x = x" have "rep f ((k+1)*n) x = rep f (n + k*n) x" by simp also have ". . . = rep f (k*n) (rep f n x)" using rep_add by force also from 1 have ". . . = rep f (k*n) x" by simp also from 1 IH have ". . . = x" by simp finally show "rep f ((Suc k)*n) x = x" by simp qed qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 92 / 118 Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 93 / 118 Outline of Lecture 8 1. Lists (to represent finite sequences). 2. More induction Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 93 / 118 Lists I Isabelle’s lists are descended from the Lisp language, they are built up using two operations: 1. The empty list: [] 2. If x is an object, and ls is a list of objects, then x # ls is a new list with x at the front and the rest being the same as ls. I I Also, lists can be created from a comma-separated list enclosed in brackets: [1, 2, 3, 4]. All the objects in a list must have the same type. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 94 / 118 Functions on Lists I You can write primitive recursive functions over lists: primrec app :: "’a list ⇒ ’a list ⇒ ’a list" where "app [] ys = ys" | "app (x#xs) ys = x # (app xs ys)" lemma "app [1,2] [3,4] = [1,2,3,4]" by simp primrec reverse :: "’a list ⇒ ’a list" where "reverse [] = []" | "reverse (x#xs) = app (reverse xs) [x]" lemma "reverse [1,2,3,4] = [4,3,2,1]" by simp Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 95 / 118 Induction on Lists and the Theorem Proving Process theorem rev_rev_id: "reverse (reverse xs) = xs" proof (induct xs) show "reverse (reverse []) = []" by simp next fix a xs assume IH: "reverse (reverse xs) = xs" — We can expand the LHS of the goal as follows have "reverse (reverse (a # xs)) = reverse (app (reverse xs) [a])" by simp — But then we’re stuck. How can we use the IH? — Can we push the outer reverse under the app? show "reverse (reverse (a # xs)) = a # xs" oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 96 / 118 Reverse-Append Lemma xs ys xs ys 1,2,3 4,5,6 1,2,3 4,5,6 reverse app 1,2,3,4,5,6 3,2,1 6,5,4 reverse 6,5,4,3,2,1 reverse app 6,5,4,3,2,1 reverse(app(xs,ys)) = app(reverse(ys), reverse(xs)) Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 97 / 118 Reverse-Append Lemma lemma rev_app: "reverse (app xs ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse xs)" proof (induct xs) have 1: "reverse (app [] ys) = reverse ys" by simp have 2: "app (reverse ys) (reverse []) = app (reverse ys) []" by simp — but no we’re stuck show "reverse (app [] ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse [])" oops Exercise: what additional lemma do we need? Prove the additional lemma. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 98 / 118 The Append-Nil Lemma lemma app_nil: "(app xs []) = xs" proof (induct xs) show "app [] [] = []" by simp next fix a xs assume IH: "app xs [] = xs" have "app (a # xs) [] = a # (app xs [])" by simp also from IH have ". . . = a # xs" by simp finally show "app (a # xs) [] = a # xs" . qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 99 / 118 Back to Reverse-Append Lemma lemma rev_app: "reverse (app xs ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse xs)" proof (induct xs) show "reverse (app [] ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse [])" using app_nil[of "reverse ys"] by simp next fix a xs assume IH: "reverse (app xs ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse xs)" have "reverse (app (a # xs) ys) = reverse (a # (app xs ys))" by simp also have ". . . = app (reverse (app xs ys) ) [a]" by simp also have ". . . = app (app (reverse ys) (reverse xs)) [a]" using IH by simp — We’re stuck again! What lemma do we need this time? show "reverse (app (a # xs) ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse (a # xs))" oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 100 / 118 Associativity of Append lemma app_assoc: "app (app xs ys) zs = app xs (app ys zs)" oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 101 / 118 Associativity of Append lemma app_assoc: proof (induct xs) show "app (app next fix a xs assume from IH show "app (app by simp qed "app (app xs ys) zs = app xs (app ys zs)" [] ys) zs = app [] (app ys zs)" by simp IH: "app (app xs ys) zs = app xs (app ys zs)" (a # xs) ys) zs = app (a # xs) (app ys zs)" Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 102 / 118 Back to the Reverse-Append Lemma, Again lemma rev_app: "reverse (app xs ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse xs)" proof (induct xs) show "reverse (app [] ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse [])" using app_nil[of "reverse ys"] by simp next fix a xs assume IH: "reverse (app xs ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse xs)" have "reverse (app (a # xs) ys) = reverse (a # (app xs ys))" by simp also have ". . . = app (reverse (app xs ys) ) [a]" by simp also have ". . . = app (app (reverse ys) (reverse xs)) [a]" using IH by simp also have ". . . = app (reverse ys) (app (reverse xs) [a])" using app_assoc[of "reverse ys" "reverse xs" "[a]"] by simp also have ". . . = app (reverse ys) (reverse (a # xs))" by simp finally show "reverse (app (a # xs) ys) = app (reverse ys) (reverse (a # xs))" . qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 103 / 118 Finally, Back to the Theorem! theorem rev_rev_id: "reverse (reverse xs) = xs" proof (induct xs) show "reverse (reverse []) = []" by simp next fix a xs assume IH: "reverse (reverse xs) = xs" — We can expand the LHS of the goal as follows have "reverse (reverse (a # xs)) = reverse (app (reverse xs) [a])" by simp also have ". . . = app (reverse [a]) (reverse (reverse xs))" using rev_app[of "reverse xs" "[a]"] by simp also from IH have ". . . = app (reverse [a]) xs" by simp also have ". . . = a # xs" by simp finally show "reverse (reverse (a # xs)) = a # xs" . qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 104 / 118 More on Lists and the Theorem Proving Process I When proving something about a recursive function, induct on the argument that is decomposed by the recursive function (e.g., the first argument of append). I The pattern of getting stuck and then proving lemmas is normal. Isabelle provides many functions and theorems regarding lists. See Isabelle/src/HOL/List.thy for more details. I Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 105 / 118 Stuff to Rememeber I Use lists to represent finite sequences. I I Isabelle provides many functions and theorems regarding lists. See Isabelle/src/HOL/List.thy for more details. Proofs often require several lemmas. I Generalize your lemmas to make the induction go through. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 106 / 118 Outline of Lecture 9 1. Converting loops into recursive functions and accumulator passing style. 2. More generalizing theorems for induction Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 107 / 118 Iterative Reverse Algorithm I The reverse function is inneficient because it uses the append function over and over again. I The following iterative algorithm reverses a list in linear time (textbook page 317). procedure iterative_reverse(list) xs = list ys = [] while xs != [] ys = hd(xs) # ys xs = tl(xs) return ys Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 108 / 118 Accumulator Passing Style I The following itrev function is a recursive version of the iterative algorithm. I The trick is to add an extra parameter for each variable that gets updated in the for loop of the iterative algorithm. primrec itrev :: "’a list ⇒ ’a list ⇒ ’a list" where "itrev [] ys = ys" | "itrev (x#xs) ys = itrev xs (x#ys)" lemma "itrev [1,2,3] [] = [3,2,1]" proof have "itrev [1,2,3] [] = itrev [2,3] [1]" by simp also have ". . . = itrev [3] [2,1]" by simp also have ". . . = itrev [] [3,2,1]" by simp also have ". . . = [3,2,1]" by simp finally show ?thesis . qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 109 / 118 Correctness of itrev Let’s try to prove that itrev reverses a list. lemma "itrev xs [] = reverse xs" oops Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 110 / 118 Generalizing in Proofs by Induction lemma "itrev xs [] = reverse xs" proof (induct xs) show "itrev [] [] = reverse []" by simp next fix x xs assume IH: "itrev xs [] = reverse xs" have "itrev (x#xs) [] = itrev xs [x]" by simp oops I I The induction hypothesis does not apply to itrev xs [x]. We need to generalize the lemma, make it stronger, to give ourselves more to assume in the induction hypothesis. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 111 / 118 Generalizing in Proofs by Induction lemma "∀ ys. itrev xs ys = app (reverse xs) ys" proof (induct xs) show "∀ ys. itrev [] ys = app (reverse []) ys" by simp next fix x xs assume IH: "∀ ys. itrev xs ys = app (reverse xs) ys" show "∀ ys. itrev (x#xs) ys = app (reverse (x # xs)) ys" proof fix ys have "itrev (x#xs) ys = itrev xs (x#ys)" by simp also from IH have ". . . = app (reverse xs) (x#ys)" by simp also have ". . . = app (reverse xs) (app [x] ys)" by simp also have ". . . = app (app (reverse xs) [x]) ys" by (simp only: app_assoc) also have ". . . = app (reverse (x # xs)) ys" by simp finally show "itrev (x#xs) ys = app (reverse (x # xs)) ys" . qed qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 112 / 118 Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 113 / 118 Outline of Lecture 10 1. Mini-project regarding the Fibonacci function: 1.1 practice converting loops into recursive functions. 1.2 proving correctness of algorithms. 2. In-class discussion of the solution. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 113 / 118 Definition of Fibonacci fun fib :: "nat ⇒ nat" where "fib 0 = 0" | "fib (Suc 0) = 1" | "fib (Suc(Suc x)) = fib x + fib (Suc x)" Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 114 / 118 Iterative Fibonacci Algorithm I The fib function is inneficient because it redundantly computes the same fibonacci number over and over. I The following iterative algorithm computes Fibonacci numbers in linear time (textbook page 317). procedure iterative_fibonacci(n) if n = 0 then y := 0 else x := 0 y : = 1 for i := 1 to n - 1 z := x + y x := y y := z return y Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 115 / 118 Project 1. Implement a recursive version of the iterative fibonacci algorithm. Use accumulator passing style. 2. Prove that your recursive function produces the same output as fib. Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 116 / 118 Accumulator Passing Fibonacci Function primrec itfib :: "nat ⇒ nat ⇒ nat ⇒ nat" where "itfib f f’ 0 = f" | "itfib f f’ (Suc k) = itfib f’ (f + f’) k" Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 117 / 118 Proof of Correctness theorem "∀ n. itfib (fib n) (fib (n + 1)) k = fib (n + k)" proof (induct k) show "∀ n. itfib (fib n) (fib (n + 1)) 0 = fib (n + 0)" by simp next fix k assume IH: "∀ n. itfib (fib n) (fib (n + 1)) k = fib (n + k)" show "∀ n. itfib (fib n) (fib (n + 1)) (Suc k) = fib (n + Suc k)" proof fix n have "itfib (fib n) (fib (n + 1)) (Suc k) = itfib (fib (n + 1)) (fib n + fib (n + 1)) k" by simp — by the definition of itfib also have ". . . = itfib (fib (n + 1)) (fib (n + 2)) k" by simp — by the definition of fib also have ". . . = fib (n + k + 1)" proof from IH have 1: "itfib (fib (n + 1)) (fib ((n + 1) + 1)) k = fib ((n + 1) + k)" .. from 1 show ?thesis by simp qed finally show "itfib (fib n) (fib (n + 1)) (Suc k) = fib (n + Suc k)" by simp qed qed Jeremy Siek Discrete Mathematics 118 / 118