Stream: Beginner Questions

Topic: Unbound Schematic Variable


view this post on Zulip Ahmed B (Apr 27 2021 at 15:23):

I am attempting to prove the strong normalisation of combinatory logic. I have run into an unexpected "Unbound Schematic Variable ?thesis" error. The code is below (I have attempted to minimise as far as possible and am using Isabelle 2020). Most likely missing something obvious as I am pretty new to Isabelle. The error occurs in the last sorried proof at both instance of ?thesis.

section ‹Strong_Normalisation›

theory Strong_Normalisation
  imports Main
  abbrevs "⟶w" = "⟶⇩w"
      and "→p" = "→⇩p"
      and "⟶b" = "⟶⇩β"
begin

(* definition of types for combinatory terms *)

datatype tp = is_At:  TAtt "nat" | TArr "tp" "tp" (infixr "→⇩p" 200)

abbreviation is_Arr :: "tp ⇒ bool" where
  "is_Arr τ ≡ ¬ (is_At τ)"

(* head of a combinatory term *)

datatype (plugins del: size) hd =
  is_Var: Var (var: string)(type: tp) ("_:_" [100,100] 100)
| is_S : S (type: tp)  ("S:_" 100)
| is_K : K (type: tp)  ("K:_" 100)
| is_Sym: Sym (sym: string)(type: tp) ("_:_" [100,100] 100)

abbreviation is_Comb :: " hd ⇒ bool" where
  "is_Comb ζ ≡ (is_S ζ) ∨  (is_K ζ)"

subsection ‹Terms›

consts head0 :: 'a

(* combinatory term *)

datatype  tm =
  is_Hd: Hd "hd"
| App ("fun":  "tm") (arg: " tm")
where
  "head (App s _) = head0 s"
| "fun (Hd ζ) = Hd ζ"
| "arg (Hd ζ) = Hd ζ"

overloading head0 ≡ "head0 :: tm ⇒ hd"
begin

primrec head0 :: "tm ⇒ hd" where
  "head0 (Hd ζ) = ζ"
| "head0 (App s _) = head0 s"

end

subsection ‹Definition of types and combinators›

fun args :: "tm ⇒ tm list" where
  "args (Hd _) = []"
| "args (App s t) = args s @ [t]"

(* type of head symbol *)
definition type_hd :: "hd ⇒ tp" where
  "type_hd t = type(t)"

(* type of term *)
fun type :: "tm ⇒ tp" where
"type (Hd h) = type_hd h" |
"type (App s t) = (case (type s) of
                    TAtt τ ⇒ TAtt τ |
                    (α →⇩p γ) ⇒ γ)"

fun size_tp :: "tp ⇒ nat" where
 "size_tp (TAtt τ) = 0" |
 "size_tp (α →⇩p γ) = 1 + size_tp α + size_tp γ"

(* inductive predicate that holds if term is well-typed *)
inductive typed :: "tm ⇒ bool" where
"typed (Hd (Var _ _))" |
"typed (Hd (Sym _ _))" |
"typed (Hd (K (σ →⇩p γ →⇩p σ)))" |
"typed (Hd (S ((σ →⇩p τ →⇩p γ) →⇩p (σ →⇩p τ) →⇩p σ →⇩p γ)))" |
"typed t1 ⟹ (type t1 = (σ →⇩p γ)) ⟹ typed t2 ⟹ (type t1 = σ) ⟹ typed (App t1 t2)"


(* inductive definition of combinatory (weak) reduction *)
inductive
  weak_reduce :: "tm ⇒ tm ⇒ bool" (" _ ⟶⇩w _" [80,80] 80)
where
  w1[intro!]: "t1 ⟶⇩w t2 ⟹ App t1 t ⟶⇩w App t2 t"
| w2[intro!]: "t1 ⟶⇩w t2 ⟹ App t t1 ⟶⇩w App t t2"
| w4[intro!]: "App (App (Hd (K _)) t1) t2 ⟶⇩w t1"
| w7[intro!]: "App (App (App (Hd (S _)) t1) t2 ) t3 ⟶⇩w App (App t1 t3) (App t2 t3)"

inductive
 weak_star :: "tm ⇒ tm ⇒ nat ⇒ bool"  (" _ ⟶⇩w* _ _" [80,80] 80)
where
 ws1[intro!] : "t ⟶⇩w* t 0"
|ws2[intro!] : "⟦(t ⟶⇩w t'); (t' ⟶⇩w* t'' n)⟧ ⟹ (t ⟶⇩w* t'' (n+1))"

definition normal_form :: "tm ⇒ bool" where
 "normal_form t1 = (∀ x. ¬(t1 ⟶⇩w x))"

definition normalizable :: "tm ⇒ bool" where
 "normalizable t1 = (∃ x n. ((t1 ⟶⇩w* x n) ∧ (normal_form x)))"

definition bounded_sn :: "nat ⇒ tm ⇒ bool" where
  "bounded_sn n t1 ⟷ (∀m. ∀ t. (t1 ⟶⇩w* t m) ⟶ m ≤ n)"

definition sn :: "tm ⇒ bool" where
 "sn t1 = (∃n. bounded_sn n t1)"

function sc :: "tm ⇒ bool" where
 "sc t1 = (case (type t1) of
            TAtt τ ⇒ sn t1 |
            (α →⇩p γ) ⇒ (∀ t2. (type t2 = α) ⟶ (sc t2 ⟶  sc (App t1 t2) ) ))"
  by auto
  termination
    by (relation "measure (λ(t). size_tp (type t))") auto

lemma a3_10 :
  fixes τ :: "tp" and
        t :: "tm"
  assumes "typed t" and
          "type t = τ" and
          " ¬ (is_Comb (head t))"
  shows  "∀s ∈ (set (args t)). sn s ⟹ sc t" and
         "sc t ⟹ sn t"
  using assms
proof(induction "size_tp τ")
  case 0
  then show ?thesis sorry
next
  case (Suc x)
  then show ?thesis sorry
qed

view this post on Zulip Manuel Eberl (Apr 27 2021 at 15:27):

?thesis is the last explicitly stated goal; you can't normally use that in an induction anyway because the induction changes the goal. You should use ?case instead.

The reason why ?case does not work here either is probably because each of the two cases has two goals. I guess the inductionmethod does not define ?case when there is more than one. You can either write down the goals in show explicitly, or you could change your lemma statement so that you use HOL implication and connect the two goals with a HOL conjunction (i.e. \wedge) so that you only have one goal.

view this post on Zulip Ahmed B (Apr 27 2021 at 15:31):

Thanks for your swift response!

view this post on Zulip Mathias Fleury (Apr 27 2021 at 15:48):

Other solution:
(I don't understand why the next between the cases are necessary…)

proof(induction "size_tp τ")
  case 0
  case 1
  show ?case
    sorry
next
  case 0
  case 2
  show ?case
    sorry
next
  case (Suc x)
  case 1
  show ?case
    sorry
next
  case (Suc x)
  case 2
  show ?case
    sorry
qed

view this post on Zulip Manuel Eberl (Apr 27 2021 at 15:50):

What!?! 🤯

view this post on Zulip Manuel Eberl (Apr 27 2021 at 15:50):

TIL

view this post on Zulip Mathias Fleury (Apr 27 2021 at 16:22):

The slight problem with this idiom is that I have never seen any documentation on it. So I don't really know if I should search longer or of it accidentally works.

view this post on Zulip Mathias Fleury (Apr 27 2021 at 16:22):

(I think I stumbled by accident on it…)


Last updated: Dec 21 2024 at 16:20 UTC