+(*D
+
+Matita Tutorial: inductively generated formal topologies
+========================================================
+
+This is a not so short introduction to Matita, based on
+the formalization of the paper
+
+> Between formal topology and game theory: an
+> explicit solution for the conditions for an
+> inductive generation of formal topologies
+
+by S.Berardi and S. Valentini. The tutorial is by Enrico Tassi.
+
+The tutorial spends a considerable amount of effort in defining
+notations that resemble the ones used in the original paper. We believe
+this a important part of every formalization, not only for the aesthetic
+point of view, but also from the practical point of view. Being
+consistent allows to follow the paper in a pedantic way, and hopefully
+to make the formalization (at least the definitions and proved
+statements) readable to the author of the paper.
+
+Orienteering
+------------
+
+The graphical interface of Matita is composed of three windows:
+the script window, on the left, is where you type; the sequent
+window on the top right is where the system shows you the ongoing proof;
+the error window, on the bottom right, is where the system complains.
+On the top of the script window five buttons drive the processing of
+the proof script. From left to right the requesting the system to:
+
+- go back to the beginning of the script
+- go back one step
+- go to the current cursor position
+- advance one step
+- advance to the end of the script
+
+When the system processes a command, it locks the part of the script
+corresponding to the command, such that you cannot edit it anymore
+(without to go back). Locked parts are coloured in blue.
+
+The sequent window is hyper textual, i.e. you can click on symbols
+to jump to their definition, or switch between different notation
+for the same expression (for example, equality has two notations,
+one of them makes the type of the arguments explicit).
+
+Everywhere in the script you can use the `ncheck (term).` command to
+ask for the type a given term. If you that in the middle of a proof,
+the term is assumed to live in the current proof context (i.e. can use
+variables introduced so far).
+
+To ease the typing of mathematical symbols, the script window
+implements two unusual input facilities:
+
+- some TeX symbols can be typed using their TeX names, and are
+ automatically converted to UTF-8 characters. For a list of
+ the supported TeX names, see the menu: View ▹ TeX/UTF-8 Table.
+ Moreover some ASCII-art is understood as well, like `=>` and `->`
+ to mean double or single arrows.
+ Here we recall some of these "shortcuts":
+
+ - ∀ can be typed with `\Forall`
+ - λ can be typed with `\lambda`
+ - ≝ can be typed with `\def` or `:=`
+ - → can be typed with `to` or `->`
+
+- some symbols have variants, like the ≤ relation and ≼, ≰, ⋠.
+ The user can cycle between variants typing one of them and then
+ pressing ALT-L. Note that also letters do have variants, for
+ example W has Ω, 𝕎 and 𝐖, L has Λ, 𝕃, and 𝐋, F has Φ, …
+ Variants are listed in the aforementioned TeX/UTF-8 table.
+
+CIC (as implemented in Matita) in a nutshell
+--------------------------------------------
+
+...
+
+Type is a set equipped with the Id equality (i.e. an intensional,
+not quotiented set). We will avoid using Leibnitz equality Id,
+thus we will explicitly equip a set with an equality when needed.
+We will call this structure `setoid`. Note that we will
+attach the infix = symbols only to the equality of a setoid,
+not to Id.
+
+...
+
+We write Type[i] to mention a Type in the predicative hierarchy
+of types. To ease the comprehension we will use Type[0] for sets,
+and Type[1] for classes.
+
+For every Type[i] there is a corresponding level of predicative
+propositions CProp[i].
+
+CIC is also equipped with an impredicative sort Prop that we will not
+use in this tutorial.
+
+The standard library and the `include` command
+----------------------------------------------
+
+Some basic notions, like subset, membership, intersection and union
+are part of the standard library of Matita.
+
+These notions come with some standard notation attached to them:
+
+- A ∪ B `A \cup B`
+- A ∩ B `A \cap B`
+- A ≬ B `A \between B`
+- x ∈ A `x \in A`
+- Ω^A, that is the type of the subsets of A, `\Omega ^ A`
+
+The `include` command tells Matita to load a part of the library,
+in particular the part that we will use can be loaded as follows:
+
+D*)
+
include "sets/sets.ma".
+(*HIDE*)
+(* move away *)
+nlemma subseteq_intersection_l: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.U ⊆ W ∨ V ⊆ W → U ∩ V ⊆ W.
+#A; #U; #V; #W; *; #H; #x; *; #xU; #xV; napply H; nassumption;
+nqed.
+
+nlemma subseteq_union_l: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.U ⊆ W → V ⊆ W → U ∪ V ⊆ W.
+#A; #U; #V; #W; #H; #H1; #x; *; #Hx; ##[ napply H; ##| napply H1; ##] nassumption;
+nqed.
+
+nlemma subseteq_intersection_r: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.W ⊆ U → W ⊆ V → W ⊆ U ∩ V.
+#A; #U; #V; #W; #H1; #H2; #x; #Hx; @; ##[ napply H1; ##| napply H2; ##] nassumption;
+nqed.
+
+ninductive sigma (A : Type[0]) (P : A → CProp[0]) : Type[0] ≝
+ sig_intro : ∀x:A.P x → sigma A P.
+
+interpretation "sigma" 'sigma \eta.p = (sigma ? p).
+(*UNHIDE*)
+
+(*D
+
+Some basic results that we will use are also part of the sets library:
+
+- subseteq\_union\_l: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.U ⊆ W → V ⊆ W → U ∪ V ⊆ W
+- subseteq\_intersection\_r: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.W ⊆ U → W ⊆ V → W ⊆ U ∩ V
+
+Defining Axiom set
+------------------
+
+A set of axioms is made of a set S, a family of sets I and a
+family C of subsets of S indexed by elements a of S and I(a).
+
+It is desirable to state theorems like "for every set of axioms, …"
+without explicitly mentioning S, I and C. To do that, the three
+components have to be grouped into a record (essentially a dependently
+typed tuple). The system is able to generate the projections
+of the record for free, and they are named as the fields of
+the record. So, given a axiom set `A` we can obtain the set
+with `S A`, the family of sets with `I A` and the family of subsets
+with `C A`.
+
+D*)
+
nrecord Ax : Type[1] ≝ {
- S:> setoid; (* Type[0]; *)
- I: S → Type[0];
- C: ∀a:S. I a → Ω ^ S
+ S :> setoid;
+ I : S → Type[0];
+ C : ∀a:S. I a → Ω ^ S
}.
-notation "𝐈 \sub( ❨a❩ )" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'I $a }.
-notation "𝐂 \sub ( ❨a,\emsp i❩ )" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'C $a $i }.
+(*D
+
+Forget for a moment the `:>` that will be detailed later, and focus on
+the record definition. It is made of a list of pairs: a name, followed
+by `:` and the its type. It is a dependently typed tuple, thus
+already defined names (fields) can be used in the types that follow.
+
+Note that `S` is declared to be a `setoid` and not a Type. The original
+paper probably also considers I to generate setoids, and both I and C
+to be morphisms. For the sake of simplicity, we will "cheat" and use
+setoids only when strictly needed (i.e. where we want to talk about
+equality). Setoids will play a role only when we will define
+the alternative version of the axiom set.
+
+Note that the field `S` was declared with `:>` instead of a simple `:`.
+This declares the `S` projection to be a coercion. A coercion is
+a function case the system automatically inserts when it is needed.
+In that case, the projection `S` has type `Ax → setoid`, and whenever
+the expected type of a term is `setoid` while its type is `Ax`, the
+system inserts the coercion around it, to make the whole term well types.
+
+When formalizing an algebraic structure, declaring the carrier as a
+coercion is a common practice, since it allows to write statements like
+
+ ∀G:Group.∀x:G.x * x^-1 = 1
+
+The quantification over `x` of type `G` is ill-typed, since `G` is a term
+(of type `Group`) and thus not a type. Since the carrier projection
+`carr` of `G` is a coercion, that maps a `Group` into the type of
+its elements, the system automatically inserts `carr` around `G`,
+obtaining `…∀x: carr G.…`. Coercions are also hidden by the system
+when it displays a term.
+
+In this particular case, the coercion `S` allows to write
+
+ ∀A:Ax.∀a:A.…
+
+Since `A` is not a type, but it can be turned into a `setoid` by `S`
+and a `setoid` can be turned into a type by its `carr` projection, the
+composed coercion `carr ∘ S` is silently inserted.
+
+Implicit arguments
+------------------
+
+Something that is not still satisfactory, is that the dependent type
+of `I` and `C` are abstracted over the Axiom set. To obtain the
+precise type of a term, you can use the `ncheck` command as follows.
+
+D*)
+
+(* ncheck I. *)
+(* ncheck C. *)
+
+(*D
+
+One would like to write `I a` and not `I A a` under a context where
+`A` is an axiom set and `a` has type `S A` (or thanks to the coercion
+mechanism simply `A`). In Matita, a question mark represents an implicit
+argument, i.e. a missing piece of information the system is asked to
+infer. Matita performs some sort of type inference, thus writing
+`I ? a` is enough: since the second argument of `I` is typed by the
+first one, the first one can be inferred just computing the type of `a`.
+
+D*)
+
+(* ncheck (∀A:Ax.∀a:A.I ? a). *)
+
+(*D
+
+This is still not completely satisfactory, since you have always type
+`?`; to fix this minor issue we have to introduce the notational
+support built in Matita.
+
+Notation for I and C
+--------------------
+
+Matita is quipped with a quite complex notational support,
+allowing the user to define and use mathematical notations
+([From Notation to Semantics: There and Back Again][1]).
+
+Since notations are usually ambiguous (e.g. the frequent overloading of
+symbols) Matita distinguishes between the term level, the
+content level, and the presentation level, allowing multiple
+mappings between the content and the term level.
+
+The mapping between the presentation level (i.e. what is typed on the
+keyboard and what is displayed in the sequent window) and the content
+level is defined with the `notation` command. When followed by
+`>`, it defines an input (only) notation.
+
+D*)
notation > "𝐈 term 90 a" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'I $a }.
notation > "𝐂 term 90 a term 90 i" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'C $a $i }.
+(*D
+
+The first notation defines the writing `𝐈 a` where `a` is a generic
+term of precedence 90, the maximum one. This high precedence forces
+parentheses around any term of a lower precedence. For example `𝐈 x`
+would be accepted, since identifiers have precedence 90, but
+`𝐈 f x` would be interpreted as `(𝐈 f) x`. In the latter case, parentheses
+have to be put around `f x`, thus the accepted writing would be `𝐈 (f x)`.
+
+To obtain the `𝐈` is enough to type `I` and then cycle between its
+similar symbols with ALT-L. The same for `𝐂`. Notations cannot use
+regular letters or the round parentheses, thus their variants (like the
+bold ones) have to be used.
+
+The first notation associates `𝐈 a` with `'I $a` where `'I` is a
+new content element to which a term `$a` is passed.
+
+Content elements have to be interpreted, and possibly multiple,
+incompatible, interpretations can be defined.
+
+D*)
+
interpretation "I" 'I a = (I ? a).
interpretation "C" 'C a i = (C ? a i).
-ndefinition cover_set ≝ λc:∀A:Ax.Ω^A → A → CProp[0].λA,C,U.
- ∀y.y ∈ C → c A U y.
+(*D
+
+The `interpretation` command allows to define the mapping between
+the content level and the terms level. Here we associate the `I` and
+`C` projections of the Axiom set record, where the Axiom set is an implicit
+argument `?` to be inferred by the system.
+
+Interpretation are bi-directional, thus when displaying a term like
+`C _ a i`, the system looks for a presentation for the content element
+`'C a i`.
+
+D*)
+
+notation < "𝐈 \sub( ❨a❩ )" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'I $a }.
+notation < "𝐂 \sub( ❨a,\emsp i❩ )" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'C $a $i }.
+
+(*D
+
+For output purposes we can define more complex notations, for example
+we can put bold parentheses around the arguments of `𝐈` and `𝐂`, decreasing
+the size of the arguments and lowering their baseline (i.e. putting them
+as subscript), separating them with a comma followed by a little space.
+
+The first (technical) definition
+--------------------------------
+
+Before defining the cover relation as an inductive predicate, one
+has to notice that the infinity rule uses, in its hypotheses, the
+cover relation between two subsets, while the inductive predicate
+we are going to define relates an element and a subset.
+
+An option would be to unfold the definition of cover between subsets,
+but we prefer to define the abstract notion of cover between subsets
+(so that we can attach a (ambiguous) notation to it).
+
+Anyway, to ease the understanding of the definition of the cover relation
+between subsets, we first define the inductive predicate unfolding the
+definition, and we later refine it with.
+
+D*)
+
+ninductive xcover (A : Ax) (U : Ω^A) : A → CProp[0] ≝
+| xcreflexivity : ∀a:A. a ∈ U → xcover A U a
+| xcinfinity : ∀a:A.∀i:𝐈 a. (∀y.y ∈ 𝐂 a i → xcover A U y) → xcover A U a.
+
+(*D
+
+We defined the xcover (x will be removed in the final version of the
+definition) as an inductive predicate. The arity of the inductive
+predicate has to be carefully analyzed:
+
+> (A : Ax) (U : Ω^A) : A → CProp[0]
+
+The syntax separates with `:` abstractions that are fixed for every
+constructor (introduction rule) and abstractions that can change. In that
+case the parameter `U` is abstracted once and forall in front of every
+constructor, and every occurrence of the inductive predicate is applied to
+`U` in a consistent way. Arguments abstracted on the right of `:` are not
+constant, for example the xcinfinity constructor introduces `a ◃ U`,
+but under the assumption that (for every y) `y ◃ U`. In that rule, the left
+had side of the predicate changes, thus it has to be abstracted (in the arity
+of the inductive predicate) on the right of `:`.
+
+D*)
+
+(* ncheck xcreflexivity. *)
+
+(*D
+
+We want now to abstract out `(∀y.y ∈ 𝐂 a i → xcover A U y)` and define
+a notion `cover_set` to which a notation `𝐂 a i ◃ U` can be attached.
+
+This notion has to be abstracted over the cover relation (whose
+type is the arity of the inductive `xcover` predicate just defined).
+
+Then it has to be abstracted over the arguments of that cover relation,
+i.e. the axiom set and the set U, and the subset (in that case `𝐂 a i`)
+sitting on the left hand side of `◃`.
+
+D*)
+
+ndefinition cover_set :
+ ∀cover: ∀A:Ax.Ω^A → A → CProp[0]. ∀A:Ax.∀C,U:Ω^A. CProp[0]
+≝
+ λcover. λA, C,U. ∀y.y ∈ C → cover A U y.
+
+(*D
+
+The `ndefinition` command takes a name, a type and body (of that type).
+The type can be omitted, and in that case it is inferred by the system.
+If the type is given, the system uses it to infer implicit arguments
+of the body. In that case all types are left implicit in the body.
+
+We now define the notation `a ◃ b`. Here the keywork `hvbox`
+and `break` tell the system how to wrap text when it does not
+fit the screen (they can be safely ignore for the scope of
+this tutorial). We also add an interpretation for that notation,
+where the (abstracted) cover relation is implicit. The system
+will not be able to infer it from the other arguments `C` and `U`
+and will thus prompt the user for it. This is also why we named this
+interpretation `covers set temp`: we will later define another
+interpretation in which the cover relation is the one we are going to
+define.
+
+D*)
-(* a \ltri b *)
notation "hvbox(a break ◃ b)" non associative with precedence 45
for @{ 'covers $a $b }.
interpretation "covers set temp" 'covers C U = (cover_set ?? C U).
+(*D
+
+The cover relation
+------------------
+
+We can now define the cover relation using the `◃` notation for
+the premise of infinity.
+
+D*)
+
ninductive cover (A : Ax) (U : Ω^A) : A → CProp[0] ≝
-| creflexivity : ∀a:A. a ∈ U → cover ? U a
-| cinfinity : ∀a:A.∀i:𝐈 a. 𝐂 a i ◃ U → cover ? U a.
+| creflexivity : ∀a. a ∈ U → cover ? U a
+| cinfinity : ∀a. ∀i. 𝐂 a i ◃ U → cover ? U a.
+(** screenshot "cover". *)
napply cover;
nqed.
+(*D
+
+Note that the system accepts the definition
+but prompts the user for the relation the `cover_set` notion is
+abstracted on.
+
+
+
+The horizontal line separates the hypotheses from the conclusion.
+The `napply cover` command tells the system that the relation
+it is looking for is exactly our first context entry (i.e. the inductive
+predicate we are defining, up to α-conversion); while the `nqed` command
+ends a definition or proof.
+
+We can now define the interpretation for the cover relation between an
+element and a subset fist, then between two subsets (but this time
+we fixed the relation `cover_set` is abstracted on).
+
+D*)
+
interpretation "covers" 'covers a U = (cover ? U a).
interpretation "covers set" 'covers a U = (cover_set cover ? a U).
+(*D
+
+We will proceed similarly for the fish relation, but before going
+on it is better to give a short introduction to the proof mode of Matita.
+We define again the `cover_set` term, but this time we will build
+its body interactively. In the λ-calculus Matita is based on, CIC, proofs
+and terms share the same syntax, and it is thus possible to use the
+commands devoted to build proof term to build regular definitions.
+A tentative semantics for the proof mode commands (called tactics)
+in terms of sequent calculus rules are given in the
+<a href="#appendix">appendix</a>.
+
+D*)
+
+ndefinition xcover_set :
+ ∀c: ∀A:Ax.Ω^A → A → CProp[0]. ∀A:Ax.∀C,U:Ω^A. CProp[0].
+ (** screenshot "xcover-set-1". *)
+#cover; #A; #C; #U; (** screenshot "xcover-set-2". *)
+napply (∀y:A.y ∈ C → ?); (** screenshot "xcover-set-3". *)
+napply cover; (** screenshot "xcover-set-4". *)
+##[ napply A;
+##| napply U;
+##| napply y;
+##]
+nqed.
+
+(*D[xcover-set-1]
+The system asks for a proof of the full statement, in an empty context.
+
+The `#` command is the ∀-introduction rule, it gives a name to an
+assumption putting it in the context, and generates a λ-abstraction
+in the proof term.
+
+D[xcover-set-2]
+We have now to provide a proposition, and we exhibit it. We left
+a part of it implicit; since the system cannot infer it it will
+ask it later. Note that the type of `∀y:A.y ∈ C → ?` is a proposition
+whenever `?` is.
+
+D[xcover-set-3]
+The proposition we want to provide is an application of the
+cover relation we have abstracted in the context. The command
+`napply`, if the given term has not the expected type (in that
+case it is a product versus a proposition) it applies it to as many
+implicit arguments as necessary (in that case `? ? ?`).
+
+D[xcover-set-4]
+The system will now ask in turn the three implicit arguments
+passed to cover. The syntax `##[` allows to start a branching
+to tackle every sub proof individually, otherwise every command
+is applied to every subrpoof. The command `##|` switches to the next
+subproof and `##]` ends the branching.
+D*)
+
+(*D
+
+The fish relation
+-----------------
+
+The definition of fish works exactly the same way as for cover, except
+that it is defined as a coinductive proposition.
+D*)
+
ndefinition fish_set ≝ λf:∀A:Ax.Ω^A → A → CProp[0].
λA,U,V.
∃a.a ∈ V ∧ f A U a.
interpretation "fish set" 'fish A U = (fish_set fish ? U A).
interpretation "fish" 'fish a U = (fish ? U a).
+(*D
+
+Introction rule for fish
+------------------------
+
+Matita is able to generate elimination rules for inductive types,
+but not introduction rules for the coinductive case.
+
+D*)
+
+(* ncheck cover_rect_CProp0. *)
+
+(*D
+
+We thus have to define the introduction rule for fish by corecursion.
+Here we again use the proof mode of Matita to exhibit the body of the
+corecursive function.
+
+D*)
+
nlet corec fish_rec (A:Ax) (U: Ω^A)
(P: Ω^A) (H1: P ⊆ U)
- (H2: ∀a:A. a ∈ P → ∀j: 𝐈 a. 𝐂 a j ≬ P):
- ∀a:A. ∀p: a ∈ P. a ⋉ U ≝ ?.
-#a; #p; napply cfish;
-##[ napply H1; napply p;
-##| #i; ncases (H2 a p i); #x; *; #xC; #xP; @; ##[napply x]
- @; ##[ napply xC ] napply (fish_rec ? U P); nassumption;
+ (H2: ∀a:A. a ∈ P → ∀j: 𝐈 a. 𝐂 a j ≬ P): ∀a:A. ∀p: a ∈ P. a ⋉ U ≝ ?.
+ (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-1". *)
+#a; #p; napply cfish; (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-2". *)
+##[ nchange in H1 with (∀b.b∈P → b∈U); (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-2-1". *)
+ napply H1; (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-3". *)
+ nassumption;
+##| #i; ncases (H2 a p i); (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-5". *)
+ #x; *; #xC; #xP; (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-5-1". *)
+ @; (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-6". *)
+ ##[ napply x
+ ##| @; (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-7". *)
+ ##[ napply xC;
+ ##| napply (fish_rec ? U P); (** screenshot "def-fish-rec-9". *)
+ nassumption;
+ ##]
+ ##]
##]
nqed.
-notation "◃U" non associative with precedence 55
-for @{ 'coverage $U }.
+(*D
+D[def-fish-rec-1]
+Note the first item of the context, it is the corecursive function we are
+defining. This item allows to perform the recursive call, but we will be
+allowed to do such call only after having generated a constructor of
+the fish coinductive type.
+
+We introduce `a` and `p`, and then return the fish constructor `cfish`.
+Since the constructor accepts two arguments, the system asks for them.
+
+D[def-fish-rec-2]
+The first one is a proof that `a ∈ U`. This can be proved using `H1` and `p`.
+With the `nchange` tactic we change `H1` into an equivalent form (this step
+can be skipped, since the system would be able to unfold the definition
+of inclusion by itself)
+
+D[def-fish-rec-2-1]
+It is now clear that `H1` can be applied. Again `napply` adds two
+implicit arguments to `H1 ? ?`, obtaining a proof of `? ∈ U` given a proof
+that `? ∈ P`. Thanks to unification, the system understands that `?` is actually
+`a`, and it asks a proof that `a ∈ P`.
+
+D[def-fish-rec-3]
+The `nassumption` tactic looks for the required proof in the context, and in
+that cases finds it in the last context position.
+
+We move now to the second branch of the proof, corresponding to the second
+argument of the `cfish` constructor.
+
+We introduce `i` and then we destruct `H2 a p i`, that being a proof
+of an overlap predicate, give as an element and a proof that it is
+both in `𝐂 a i` and `P`.
+
+D[def-fish-rec-5]
+We then introduce `x`, break the conjunction (the `*;` command is the
+equivalent of `ncases` but operates on the first hypothesis that can
+be introduced. We then introduce the two sides of the conjunction.
+
+D[def-fish-rec-5-1]
+The goal is now the existence of an a point in `𝐂 a i` fished by `U`.
+We thus need to use the introduction rule for the existential quantifier.
+In CIC it is a defined notion, that is an inductive type with just
+one constructor (one introduction rule) holding the witness and the proof
+that the witness satisfies a proposition.
+
+> ncheck Ex.
+
+Instead of trying to remember the name of the constructor, that should
+be used as the argument of `napply`, we can ask the system to find by
+itself the constructor name and apply it with the `@` tactic.
+Note that some inductive predicates, like the disjunction, have multiple
+introduction rules, and thus `@` can be followed by a number identifying
+the constructor.
+
+D[def-fish-rec-6]
+After choosing `x` as the witness, we have to prove a conjunction,
+and we again apply the introduction rule for the inductively defined
+predicate `∧`.
+
+D[def-fish-rec-7]
+The left hand side of the conjunction is trivial to prove, since it
+is already in the context. The right hand side needs to perform
+the co-recursive call.
+
+D[def-fish-rec-9]
+The co-recursive call needs some arguments, but all of them live
+in the context. Instead of explicitly mention them, we use the
+`nassumption` tactic, that simply tries to apply every context item.
+
+D*)
+
+(*D
+
+Subset of covered/fished points
+-------------------------------
+
+We now have to define the subset of `S` of points covered by `U`.
+We also define a prefix notation for it. Remember that the precedence
+of the prefix form of a symbol has to be lower than the precedence
+of its infix form.
+
+D*)
ndefinition coverage : ∀A:Ax.∀U:Ω^A.Ω^A ≝ λA,U.{ a | a ◃ U }.
+notation "◃U" non associative with precedence 55 for @{ 'coverage $U }.
+
interpretation "coverage cover" 'coverage U = (coverage ? U).
+(*D
+
+Here we define the equation characterizing the cover relation.
+In the igft.ma file we proved that `◃U` is the minimum solution for
+such equation, the interested reader should be able to reply the proof
+with Matita.
+
+D*)
+
ndefinition cover_equation : ∀A:Ax.∀U,X:Ω^A.CProp[0] ≝ λA,U,X.
∀a.a ∈ X ↔ (a ∈ U ∨ ∃i:𝐈 a.∀y.y ∈ 𝐂 a i → y ∈ X).
##]
nqed.
+(*D
+
+We similarly define the subset of point fished by `F`, the
+equation characterizing `⋉F` and prove that fish is
+the biggest solution for such equation.
+
+D*)
+
notation "⋉F" non associative with precedence 55
for @{ 'fished $F }.
ndefinition fish_equation : ∀A:Ax.∀F,X:Ω^A.CProp[0] ≝ λA,F,X.
∀a. a ∈ X ↔ a ∈ F ∧ ∀i:𝐈 a.∃y.y ∈ 𝐂 a i ∧ y ∈ X.
-ntheorem fised_fish_equation : ∀A,F. fish_equation A F (⋉F).
-#A; #F; #a; @; (* bug, fare case sotto diverso da farlo sopra *) #H; ncases H;
+ntheorem fished_fish_equation : ∀A,F. fish_equation A F (⋉F).
+#A; #F; #a; @; (* *; non genera outtype che lega a *) #H; ncases H;
##[ #b; #bF; #H2; @ bF; #i; ncases (H2 i); #c; *; #cC; #cF; @c; @ cC;
napply cF;
##| #aF; #H1; @ aF; napply H1;
##]
nqed.
-ntheorem fised_max_fish_equation : ∀A,F,G. fish_equation A F G → G ⊆ ⋉F.
+ntheorem fished_max_fish_equation : ∀A,F,G. fish_equation A F G → G ⊆ ⋉F.
#A; #F; #G; #H; #a; #aG; napply (fish_rec … aG);
#b; ncases (H b); #H1; #_; #bG; ncases (H1 bG); #E1; #E2; nassumption;
nqed.
+(*D
+
+Part 2, the new set of axioms
+-----------------------------
+
+Since the name of objects (record included) has to unique
+within the same script, we prefix every field name
+in the new definition of the axiom set with `n`.
+
+D*)
+
nrecord nAx : Type[2] ≝ {
- nS:> setoid; (*Type[0];*)
+ nS:> setoid;
nI: nS → Type[0];
nD: ∀a:nS. nI a → Type[0];
nd: ∀a:nS. ∀i:nI a. nD a i → nS
}.
-(*
-TYPE f A → B, g : B → A, f ∘ g = id, g ∘ g = id.
+(*D
+
+We again define a notation for the projections, making the
+projected record an implicit argument. Note that since we already have
+a notation for `𝐈` we just add another interpretation for it. The
+system, looking at the argument of `𝐈`, will be able to use
+the correct interpretation.
-a = b → I a = I b
-*)
+D*)
notation "𝐃 \sub ( ❨a,\emsp i❩ )" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'D $a $i }.
notation "𝐝 \sub ( ❨a,\emsp i,\emsp j❩ )" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'd $a $i $j}.
interpretation "d" 'd a i j = (nd ? a i j).
interpretation "new I" 'I a = (nI ? a).
+(*D
+
+The paper defines the image as
+
+> Im[d(a,i)] = { d(a,i,j) | j : D(a,i) }
+
+but this cannot be ..... MAIL
+
+> Im[d(a,i)] ⊆ V
+
+Allora ha una comoda interpretazione (che voi usate liberamente)
+
+> ∀j:D(a,i). d(a,i,j) ∈ V
+
+Ma se voglio usare Im per definire C, che è un subset di S, devo per
+forza (almeno credo) definire un subset, ovvero dire che
+
+> Im[d(a,i)] = { y : S | ∃j:D(a,i). y = d(a,i,j) }
+
+Non ci sono problemi di sostanza, per voi S è un set, quindi ha la sua
+uguaglianza..., ma quando mi chiedo se l'immagine è contenuta si
+scatenano i setoidi. Ovvero Im[d(a,i)] ⊆ V diventa il seguente
+
+> ∀x:S. ( ∃j.x = d(a,i,j) ) → x ∈ V
+
+
+D*)
+
ndefinition image ≝ λA:nAx.λa:A.λi. { x | ∃j:𝐃 a i. x = 𝐝 a i j }.
notation > "𝐈𝐦 [𝐝 term 90 a term 90 i]" non associative with precedence 70 for @{ 'Im $a $i }.
interpretation "image" 'Im a i = (image ? a i).
+(*D
+
+
+
+D*)
+
ndefinition Ax_of_nAx : nAx → Ax.
#A; @ A (nI ?); #a; #i; napply (𝐈𝐦 [𝐝 a i]);
nqed.
-ninductive sigma (A : Type[0]) (P : A → CProp[0]) : Type[0] ≝
- sig_intro : ∀x:A.P x → sigma A P.
-
-interpretation "sigma" 'sigma \eta.p = (sigma ? p).
-
ndefinition nAx_of_Ax : Ax → nAx.
#A; @ A (I ?);
##[ #a; #i; napply (Σx:A.x ∈ 𝐂 a i);
##]
nqed.
+(*D
+
+We then define the inductive type of ordinals, parametrized over an axiom
+set. We also attach some notations to the constructors.
+
+D*)
+
ninductive Ord (A : nAx) : Type[0] ≝
| oO : Ord A
| oS : Ord A → Ord A
| oL : ∀a:A.∀i.∀f:𝐃 a i → Ord A. Ord A.
+notation "0" non associative with precedence 90 for @{ 'oO }.
notation "Λ term 90 f" non associative with precedence 50 for @{ 'oL $f }.
notation "x+1" non associative with precedence 50 for @{'oS $x }.
+interpretation "ordinals Zero" 'oO = (oO ?).
interpretation "ordinals Lambda" 'oL f = (oL ? ? ? f).
interpretation "ordinals Succ" 'oS x = (oS ? x).
+(*D
+
+Note that Matita does not support notation in the left hand side
+of a pattern match, and thus the names of the constructors have to
+be spelled out verbatim.
+
+BLA let rec. Bla let_in.
+
+D*)
+
nlet rec famU (A : nAx) (U : Ω^A) (x : Ord A) on x : Ω^A ≝
match x with
[ oO ⇒ U
notation > "U ⎽ term 90 x" non associative with precedence 50 for @{ 'famU $U $x }.
interpretation "famU" 'famU U x = (famU ? U x).
+
+(*D
+
+We attach as the input notation for U_x the similar `U⎽x` where underscore,
+that is a character valid for identifier names, has been replaced by `⎽` that is
+not. The symbol `⎽` can act as a separator, and can be typed as an alternative
+for `_` (i.e. pressing ALT-L after `_`).
+
+The notion ◃(U) has to be defined as the subset of of y
+belonging to U_x for some x. Moreover, we have to define the notion
+of cover between sets again, since the one defined at the beginning
+of the tutorial works only for the old axiom set definition.
+
+D*)
ndefinition ord_coverage : ∀A:nAx.∀U:Ω^A.Ω^A ≝ λA,U.{ y | ∃x:Ord A. y ∈ famU ? U x }.
interpretation "new covers set" 'covers a U = (ord_cover_set ord_coverage ? a U).
interpretation "new covers" 'covers a U = (mem ? (ord_coverage ? U) a).
-ntheorem new_coverage_reflexive:
- ∀A:nAx.∀U:Ω^A.∀a. a ∈ U → a ◃ U.
-#A; #U; #a; #H; @ (oO A); napply H;
-nqed.
+(*D
+
+Before proving that this cover relation validates the reflexivity and infinity
+rules, we prove this little technical lemma that is used in the proof for the
+infinity rule.
+
+D*)
nlemma ord_subset:
∀A:nAx.∀a:A.∀i,f,U.∀j:𝐃 a i.U⎽(f j) ⊆ U⎽(Λ f).
#A; #a; #i; #f; #U; #j; #b; #bUf; @ j; nassumption;
nqed.
-naxiom AC : ∀A,a,i,U.(∀j:𝐃 a i.∃x:Ord A.𝐝 a i j ∈ U⎽x) → (Σf.∀j:𝐃 a i.𝐝 a i j ∈ U⎽(f j)).
+(*D
+
+The proof of infinity uses the following form of the Axiom of choice,
+that cannot be prove inside Matita, since the existential quantifier
+lives in the sort of predicative propositions while the sigma in the conclusion
+lives in the sort of data types, and thus the former cannot be eliminated
+to provide the second.
+
+D*)
+
+naxiom AC : ∀A,a,i,U.
+ (∀j:𝐃 a i.∃x:Ord A.𝐝 a i j ∈ U⎽x) → (Σf.∀j:𝐃 a i.𝐝 a i j ∈ U⎽(f j)).
+
+(*D
+
+In the proof of infinity, we have to rewrite under the ∈ predicate.
+It is clearly possible to show that U_x is an extensional set:
+
+> a=b → a ∈ U_x → b ∈ U_x
+
+Anyway this proof in non trivial induction over x, that requires 𝐈 and 𝐃 to be
+declared as morphisms. This poses to problem, but goes out of the scope of the
+tutorial and we thus assume it.
+
+D*)
naxiom setoidification :
- ∀A:nAx.∀a,b:A.∀U.a=b → b ∈ U → a ∈ U.
+ ∀A:nAx.∀a,b:A.∀x.∀U.a=b → b ∈ U⎽x → a ∈ U⎽x.
+(*D
+
+The reflexivity proof is trivial, it is enough to provide the ordinal 0
+as a witness, then ◃(U) reduces to U by definition, hence the conclusion.
+
+D*)
+ntheorem new_coverage_reflexive:
+ ∀A:nAx.∀U:Ω^A.∀a. a ∈ U → a ◃ U.
+#A; #U; #a; #H; @ (0); napply H;
+nqed.
+
+(*D
+
+We now proceed with the proof of the infinity rule.
+
+D*)
+
+alias symbol "covers" = "new covers set".
alias symbol "covers" = "new covers".
alias symbol "covers" = "new covers set".
alias symbol "covers" = "new covers".
ntheorem new_coverage_infinity:
∀A:nAx.∀U:Ω^A.∀a:A. (∃i:𝐈 a. 𝐈𝐦[𝐝 a i] ◃ U) → a ◃ U.
-#A; #U; #a; *; #i; #H; nnormalize in H;
-ncut (∀y:𝐃 a i.∃x:Ord A.𝐝 a i y ∈ U⎽x); ##[
- #y; napply H; @ y; napply #; ##] #H';
-ncases (AC … H'); #f; #Hf;
+#A; #U; #a; (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-1". *)
+*; #i; #H; nnormalize in H; (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-2". *)
+ncut (∀y:𝐃 a i.∃x:Ord A.𝐝 a i y ∈ U⎽x); ##[ (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-3". *)
+ #z; napply H; @ z; napply #; ##] #H'; (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-4". *)
+ncases (AC … H'); #f; #Hf; (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-5". *)
ncut (∀j.𝐝 a i j ∈ U⎽(Λ f));
- ##[ #j; napply (ord_subset … f … (Hf j));##] #Hf';
-@ ((Λ f)+1); @2; nwhd; @i; #x; *; #d; #Hd;
+ ##[ #j; napply (ord_subset … f … (Hf j));##] #Hf';(** screenshot "n-cov-inf-6". *)
+@ (Λ f+1); (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-7". *)
+@2; (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-8". *)
+@i; #x; *; #d; #Hd; (** screenshot "n-cov-inf-9". *)
napply (setoidification … Hd); napply Hf';
nqed.
-(* move away *)
-nlemma subseteq_union: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.U ⊆ W → V ⊆ W → U ∪ V ⊆ W.
-#A; #U; #V; #W; #H; #H1; #x; *; #Hx; ##[ napply H; ##| napply H1; ##] nassumption;
-nqed.
+(*D
+D[n-cov-inf-1]
+We eliminate the existential, obtaining an `i` and a proof that the
+image of d(a,i) is covered by U. The `nnormalize` tactic computes the normal
+form of `H`, thus expands the definition of cover between sets.
+
+D[n-cov-inf-2]
+The paper proof considers `H` implicitly substitutes the equation assumed
+by `H` in its conclusion. In Matita this step is not completely trivia.
+We thus assert (`ncut`) the nicer form of `H`.
+
+D[n-cov-inf-3]
+After introducing `z`, `H` can be applied (choosing `𝐝 a i z` as `y`).
+What is the left to prove is that `∃j: 𝐃 a j. 𝐝 a i z = 𝐝 a i j`, that
+becomes trivial is `j` is chosen to be `z`. In the command `napply #`,
+the `#` is a standard notation for the reflexivity property of the equality.
+
+D[n-cov-inf-4]
+Under `H'` the axiom of choice `AC` can be eliminated, obtaining the `f` and
+its property.
+
+D[n-cov-inf-5]
+The paper proof does now a forward reasoning step, deriving (by the ord_subset
+lemma we proved above) `Hf'` i.e. 𝐝 a i j ∈ U⎽(Λf).
+
+D[n-cov-inf-6]
+To prove that `a◃U` we have to exhibit the ordinal x such that `a ∈ U⎽x`.
+
+D[n-cov-inf-7]
+The definition of `U⎽(…+1)` expands to the union of two sets, and proving
+that `a ∈ X ∪ Y` is defined as proving that `a` is in `X` or `Y`. Applying
+the second constructor `@2;` of the disjunction, we are left to prove that `a`
+belongs to the right hand side.
+
+D[n-cov-inf-8]
+We thus provide `i`, introduce the element being in the image and we are
+left to prove that it belongs to `U_(Λf)`. In the meanwhile, since belonging
+to the image means that there exists an object in the domain… we eliminate the
+existential, obtaining `d` (of type `𝐃 a i`) and the equation defining `x`.
+
+D[n-cov-inf-9]
+We just need to use the equational definition of `x` to obtain a conclusion
+that can be proved with `Hf'`. We assumed that `U_x` is extensional for
+every `x`, thus we are allowed to use `Hd` and close the proof.
+
+D*)
+
+(*D
+
+The next proof is that ◃(U) is mininal. The hardest part of the proof
+it to prepare the goal for the induction. The desiderata is to prove
+`U⎽o ⊆ V` by induction on `o`, but the conclusion of the lemma is,
+unfolding all definitions:
+
+> ∀x. x ∈ { y | ∃o:Ord A.y ∈ U⎽o } → x ∈ V
+
+D*)
nlemma new_coverage_min :
- ∀A:nAx.∀U:qpowerclass A.∀V.U ⊆ V → (∀a:A.∀i.𝐈𝐦[𝐝 a i] ⊆ V → a ∈ V) → ◃(pc ? U) ⊆ V.
-#A; #U; #V; #HUV; #Im; #b; *; #o; ngeneralize in match b; nchange with ((pc ? U)⎽o ⊆ V);
-nelim o;
+ ∀A:nAx.∀U:Ω^A.∀V.U ⊆ V → (∀a:A.∀i.𝐈𝐦[𝐝 a i] ⊆ V → a ∈ V) → ◃U ⊆ V.
+#A; #U; #V; #HUV; #Im;#b; (** screenshot "n-cov-min-2". *)
+*; #o; (** screenshot "n-cov-min-3". *)
+ngeneralize in match b; nchange with (U⎽o ⊆ V); (** screenshot "n-cov-min-4". *)
+nelim o; (** screenshot "n-cov-min-5". *)
##[ #b; #bU0; napply HUV; napply bU0;
-##| #p; #IH; napply subseteq_union; ##[ nassumption; ##]
+##| #p; #IH; napply subseteq_union_l; ##[ nassumption; ##]
#x; *; #i; #H; napply (Im ? i); napply (subseteq_trans … IH); napply H;
##| #a; #i; #f; #IH; #x; *; #d; napply IH; ##]
nqed.
+(*D
+D[n-cov-min-2]
+After all the introductions, event the element hidden in the ⊆ definition,
+we have to eliminate the existential quantifier, obtaining the ordinal `o`
+
+D[n-cov-min-3]
+What is left is almost right, but the element `b` is already in the
+context. We thus generalize every occurrence of `b` in
+the current goal, obtaining `∀c.c ∈ U⎽o → c ∈ V` that is `U⎽o ⊆ V`.
+
+D[n-cov-min-4]
+We then proceed by induction on `o` obtaining the following goals
+
+D[n-cov-min-5]
+All of them can be proved using simple set theoretic arguments,
+the induction hypothesis and the assumption `Im`.
+
+D*)
+
+
+(*D
+
+bla bla
+
+D*)
+
nlet rec famF (A: nAx) (F : Ω^A) (x : Ord A) on x : Ω^A ≝
match x with
[ oO ⇒ F
interpretation "fished new fish" 'fished U = (ord_fished ? U).
interpretation "new fish" 'fish a U = (mem ? (ord_fished ? U) a).
-ntheorem new_fish_antirefl:
- ∀A:nAx.∀F:Ω^A.∀a. a ⋉ F → a ∈ F.
-#A; #F; #a; #H; nlapply (H (oO ?)); #aFo; napply aFo;
-nqed.
+(*D
+
+The proof of compatibility uses this little result, that we
+factored out.
+D*)
nlemma co_ord_subset:
∀A:nAx.∀F:Ω^A.∀a,i.∀f:𝐃 a i → Ord A.∀j. F⎽(Λ f) ⊆ F⎽(f j).
#A; #F; #a; #i; #f; #j; #x; #H; napply H;
nqed.
+(*D
+
+We assume the dual of the axiom of choice, as in the paper proof.
+
+D*)
naxiom AC_dual :
∀A:nAx.∀a:A.∀i,F. (∀f:𝐃 a i → Ord A.∃x:𝐃 a i.𝐝 a i x ∈ F⎽(f x)) → ∃j:𝐃 a i.∀x:Ord A.𝐝 a i j ∈ F⎽x.
+(*D
+Proving the anti-reflexivity property is simce, since the
+assumption `a ⋉ F` states that for every ordinal `x` (and thus also 0)
+`a ∈ F⎽x`. If `x` is choosen to be `0`, we obtain the thesis.
+
+D*)
+ntheorem new_fish_antirefl:
+ ∀A:nAx.∀F:Ω^A.∀a. a ⋉ F → a ∈ F.
+#A; #F; #a; #H; nlapply (H 0); #aFo; napply aFo;
+nqed.
+
+(*D
+
+bar
+
+D*)
ntheorem new_fish_compatible:
∀A:nAx.∀F:Ω^A.∀a. a ⋉ F → ∀i:𝐈 a.∃j:𝐃 a i.𝐝 a i j ⋉ F.
-#A; #F; #a; #aF; #i; nnormalize;
-napply AC_dual; #f;
-nlapply (aF (Λf+1)); #aLf;
-nchange in aLf with (a ∈ F⎽(Λ f) ∧ ∀i:𝐈 a.∃j:𝐃 a i.𝐝 a i j ∈ F⎽(Λ f));
+#A; #F; #a; #aF; #i; nnormalize; (** screenshot "n-f-compat-1". *)
+napply AC_dual; #f; (** screenshot "n-f-compat-2". *)
+nlapply (aF (Λf+1)); #aLf; (** screenshot "n-f-compat-3". *)
+nchange in aLf with
+ (a ∈ F⎽(Λ f) ∧ ∀i:𝐈 a.∃j:𝐃 a i.𝐝 a i j ∈ F⎽(Λ f)); (** screenshot "n-f-compat-4". *)
ncut (∃j:𝐃 a i.𝐝 a i j ∈ F⎽(f j));##[
- ncases aLf; #_; #H; nlapply (H i); *; #j; #Hj; @j; napply Hj;##] #aLf';
+ ncases aLf; #_; #H; nlapply (H i); (** screenshot "n-f-compat-5". *)
+ *; #j; #Hj; @j; napply Hj;##] #aLf'; (** screenshot "n-f-compat-6". *)
napply aLf';
nqed.
-(* move away *)
-nlemma subseteq_intersection_l: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.U ⊆ W ∨ V ⊆ W → U ∩ V ⊆ W.
-#A; #U; #V; #W; *; #H; #x; *; #xU; #xV; napply H; nassumption;
-nqed.
+(*D
+D[n-f-compat-1]
+D[n-f-compat-2]
+D[n-f-compat-3]
+D[n-f-compat-4]
+D[n-f-compat-5]
+D[n-f-compat-6]
-nlemma subseteq_intersection_r: ∀A.∀U,V,W:Ω^A.W ⊆ U → W ⊆ V → W ⊆ U ∩ V.
-#A; #U; #V; #W; #H1; #H2; #x; #Hx; @; ##[ napply H1; ##| napply H2; ##] nassumption;
-nqed.
-
+D*)
+
+(*D
+
+The proof that `⋉(F)` is maximal is exactly the dual one of the
+minimality of `◃(U)`. Thus the main problem is to obtain `G ⊆ F⎽o`
+before doing the induction over `o`.
+
+D*)
ntheorem max_new_fished:
- ∀A:nAx.∀G,F:Ω^A.G ⊆ F → (∀a.a ∈ G → ∀i.𝐈𝐦[𝐝 a i] ≬ G) → G ⊆ ⋉F.
-#A; #G; #F; #GF; #H; #b; #HbG; #o; ngeneralize in match HbG; ngeneralize in match b;
+ ∀A:nAx.∀G:ext_powerclass_setoid A.∀F:Ω^A.G ⊆ F → (∀a.a ∈ G → ∀i.𝐈𝐦[𝐝 a i] ≬ G) → G ⊆ ⋉F.
+#A; #G; #F; #GF; #H; #b; #HbG; #o;
+ngeneralize in match HbG; ngeneralize in match b;
nchange with (G ⊆ F⎽o);
nelim o;
##[ napply GF;
##| #p; #IH; napply (subseteq_intersection_r … IH);
#x; #Hx; #i; ncases (H … Hx i); #c; *; *; #d; #Ed; #cG;
- @d; napply IH; napply (setoidification … Ed^-1); napply cG;
+ @d; napply IH;
+ napply (. Ed^-1‡#); napply cG;
##| #a; #i; #f; #Hf; nchange with (G ⊆ { y | ∀x. y ∈ F⎽(f x) });
#b; #Hb; #d; napply (Hf d); napply Hb;
##]
nqed.
+
+(*D
+<div id="appendix" class="anchor"></div>
+Appendix: tactics explanation
+-----------------------------
+
+In this appendix we try to give a description of tactics
+in terms of sequent calculus rules annotated with proofs.
+The `:` separator has to be read as _is a proof of_, in the spirit
+of the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
+
+ Γ ⊢ f : A1 → … → An → B Γ ⊢ ?1 : A1 … ?n : An
+ napply f; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ (f ?1 … ?n ) : B
+
+ Γ ⊢ ? : F → B Γ ⊢ f : F
+ nlapply f; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ (? f) : B
+
+
+ Γ; x : T ⊢ ? : P(x)
+ #x; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ λx:T.? : ∀x:T.P(x)
+
+
+ Γ ⊢ ?_i : args_i → P(k_i args_i)
+ ncases x; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ match x with [ k1 args1 ⇒ ?_1 | … | kn argsn ⇒ ?_n ] : P(x)
+
+
+ Γ ⊢ ?i : ∀t. P(t) → P(k_i … t …)
+ nelim x; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ (T_rect_CProp0 ?_1 … ?_n) : P(x)
+
+Where `T_rect_CProp0` is the induction principle for the
+inductive type `T`.
+
+ Γ ⊢ ? : Q Q ≡ P
+ nchange with Q; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ ? : P
+
+Where the equivalence relation between types `≡` keeps into account
+β-reduction, δ-reduction (definition unfolding), ζ-reduction (local
+definition unfolding), ι-reduction (pattern matching simplification),
+μ-reduction (recursive function computation) and ν-reduction (co-fixpoint
+computation).
+
+
+ Γ; H : Q; Δ ⊢ ? : G Q ≡ P
+ nchange in H with Q; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ; H : P; Δ ⊢ ? : G
+
+
+
+ Γ ⊢ ?_2 : T → G Γ ⊢ ?_1 : T
+ ncut T; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ (?_2 ?_1) : G
+
+
+ Γ ⊢ ? : ∀x.P(x)
+ ngeneralize in match t; ⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼⎼
+ Γ ⊢ (? t) : P(t)
+
+D*)
+
+
+(*D
+
+[1]: http://upsilon.cc/~zack/research/publications/notation.pdf
+
+D*)
projects / helm.git / blobdiff