From: Claudio Sacerdoti Coen Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 10:07:58 +0000 (+0000) Subject: ... X-Git-Tag: make_still_working~844 X-Git-Url: http://matita.cs.unibo.it/gitweb/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=886d7c4b7a21b4ca8f148d42555a5d89e8222fc8;p=helm.git ... --- diff --git a/matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter13.ma b/matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter13.ma index bd316ba4f..3ff16855e 100644 --- a/matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter13.ma +++ b/matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter13.ma @@ -847,11 +847,83 @@ qed. we need to turn the type of sequences into a setoid. The two alternatives are actually equivalent with respect to this issue. *) -(***** +(******* Generic construction principles *******) -(* AGGIUNGERE SPIEGAZIONE SU PRODUTTIVITA' *) +(* When an inductive type is defined Matita automatically + proves a generic elimination principle using a recursive definition. Later the + user can apply the generic eliminator in the middle of a proof, without the + need to make a lemma and prove it using a let rec. + + For example, the principle generated for a list is the following: + + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀P: A → Prop. + P (nil …) → (∀hd:A. ∀tl: list A. P tl → P (hd::tl)) → + ∀l:list A. P l + + Here the predicate P is dependent, i.e. it is not just a proposition, but + a proposition indexed by the list we are analysing. + + The corresponding non dependent principle is: + + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀P: Prop. + P → (∀hd:A. ∀tl: list A. P → P) → + ∀l:list A. P l -(* AGGIUNGERE CONFRONTO CON TEORIA DELLE CATEGORIE *) + that we can rewrite up to currification as + + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀P: Prop. + ((unit + A × list A × P) → P) → + list A → P + + and, turning the recursor into an iterator, to the simpler form + + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀P: Prop. + ((unit + A × P) → P) → + list A → P + + Thinking of a list as the least fixpoint of the equation + + list A = unit + A × list A + + The above principle says that we can prove P as soon as we can prove P for + every possible shape of the list, replacing sublists (list A) with the + result P of recursive calls of the iterator. + + Streams are the greatest fixpoint of the same equation + + stream A = unit + A × stream A + + Dualizing the idea of a generic destructor for list, we obtain the type of the + generic constructor for streams: + + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀P: Prop. + (P → (unit + A × P)) → + P → stream A + + The above principle says that we can build a stream from a proof of P as soon + as we can observe from P what shape the stream has and what P will be used to + generate the reamining of the stream. The principle is indeed easily provable + in Matita. *) + +let corec stream_coind (A: Type[0]) (P: Prop) (H: P → Sum unit (A × P)) + (p:P) : stream A ≝ + match H p with + [ inl _ ⇒ snil A + | inr cpl ⇒ let 〈hd,p'〉 ≝ cpl in scons A hd (stream_coind A P H p') ]. + +(* At the moment Matita does not automatically prove any generic construction + principle. One reason is that the type of the generated principles is less + informative than that for elimination principles. The problem is that in the + type theory of Matita it is not possible to generalize the above type to a + dependent version, to obtain the exact dual of the elimination principle. + In case of the elimination principle, the type P depends on the value of the + input, and the principle proves the dependent product ∀l: list A. P A. + In the case of the introduction principle, the output is P → list A. + To obtain a dependent version, we would need a dual of the dependent product + such that the type of the input is dependent on the value of the output: a + notion that is not even meaningful when the function is not injective. *) + +(* AGGIUNGERE SPIEGAZIONE SU PRODUTTIVITA' *) (* AGGIUNGERE ESEMPI DI SEMANTICA OPERAZIONE BIG STEP PER LA DIVERGENZA; DI PROPRIETA' DI SAFETY; @@ -860,8 +932,3 @@ qed. (* ################## COME SPIEGARLO QUI? ####################### *) -(*let corec stream_coind (A: Type[0]) (P: Prop) (H: P → Sum unit (A × P)) - (p:P) : stream A ≝ - match H p with - [ inl _ ⇒ snil A - | inr cpl ⇒ let 〈hd,p'〉 ≝ cpl in scons A hd (stream_coind A P H p') ]. * \ No newline at end of file