From c43048b752d6b797bc238ea16a42180449bf63f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Claudio Sacerdoti Coen Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:46:49 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] A tentative chaptern on coinductive types. Currently I hitted a major bug somewhere. --- matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter12.ma | 656 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 656 insertions(+) create mode 100644 matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter12.ma diff --git a/matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter12.ma b/matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter12.ma new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7923b2b26 --- /dev/null +++ b/matita/matita/lib/tutorial/chapter12.ma @@ -0,0 +1,656 @@ +(* +Coinductive Types and Predicates +*) + +include "arithmetics/nat.ma". +include "basics/types.ma". +include "basics/lists/list.ma". + +(* The only primitive data types of Matita are dependent products and universes. +So far every other user defined data type has been an inductive type. An +inductive type is declared by giving its list of constructors (or introduction +rules in the case of predicates). An inhabitant of an inductive type is obtained +composing together a finite number of constructors and data of other types, +according to the type of the constructors. Therefore all inhabitants of inductive +types are essentially finite objects. Natural numbers, lists, trees, states of +a DFA, letters of an alphabet are all finite and can be defined inductively. + +If you think of an inhabitant of an inductive type as a tree of a certain shape, +whose nodes are constructors, the only trees can be represented are trees of +finite height. Note, however, that it is possible to have trees of infinite +width by putting in the argument of a constructor of a type I an enumeration +of elements of I (e.g. ℕ → I). *) + +(* Example of an infinitely branching tree of elements of type A stored in +the nodes: *) +inductive infbrtree (A: Type[0]) : Type[0] ≝ + Nil: infbrtree A + | Node: A → (ℕ → infbrtree A) → infbrtree A. + +(* Example: the tree of natural numbers whose root holds 0 and has as children + the leafs 1,2,3,… *) +example infbrtree_ex ≝ Node ℕ 0 (λn. Node ℕ (S n) (λ_.Nil ℕ)). + +(*** Infinite data types via functions ***) + +(* In mathematics and less frequently in computer science there is the need to +also represent and manipulate types of infinite objects. Typical examples are: +sequences, real numbers (a special case of sequences), data streams (e.g. as +read from a network interface), traces of diverging computations of a program, +etc. One possible representation, used in mathematics since a long time, is +to describe an infinite object by means of an infinite collection of +approximations (also called observations). Often, the infinite collection can +be structured in a sequence, identified as a function from the domain of natural +numbers. *) + +(* Example 1: sequences of elements of type A *) +definition seq : Type[0] → Type[0] ≝ λA:Type[0]. ℕ → A. + +(* Example 2: Real numbers as Cauchy sequences and their addition. *) +(* First we axiomatize the relevant properties of rational numbers. *) +axiom Q: Type[0]. +axiom Qdist: Q → Q → Q. +axiom Qleq: Q → Q → Prop. +interpretation "Qleq" 'leq x y = (Qleq x y). +axiom transitive_Qleq: transitive … Qleq. +axiom Qplus: Q → Q → Q. +interpretation "Qplus" 'plus x y = (Qplus x y). +axiom Qleq_Qplus: + ∀qa1,qb1,qa2,qb2. qa1 ≤ qb1 → qa2 ≤ qb2 → qa1 + qa2 ≤ qb1 + qb2. +axiom Qdist_Qplus: + ∀qa1,qb1,qa2,qb2. Qdist (qa1 + qa2) (qb1 + qb2) ≤ Qdist qa1 qb1 + Qdist qa2 qb2. +axiom Qhalve: Q → Q. +axiom Qplus_Qhalve_Qhalve: ∀q. Qhalve q + Qhalve q = q. + +(* A sequence of rationals. *) +definition Qseq: Type[0] ≝ seq Q. + +(* The Cauchy property *) +definition Cauchy: Qseq → Prop ≝ + λR:Qseq. ∀eps. ∃n. ∀i,j. n ≤ i → n ≤ j → Qdist (R i) (R j) ≤ eps. + +(* A real number is an equivalence class of Cauchy sequences. Here we just + define the carrier, omitting the necessary equivalence relation for the + quotient. *) +record R: Type[0] ≝ + { r: Qseq + ; isCauchy: Cauchy r + }. + +(* The following coercion is used to write r n to extract the n-th approximation + from the real number r *) +coercion R_to_fun : ∀r:R. ℕ → Q ≝ r on _r:R to ?. + +(* Adding two real numbers just requires pointwise addition of the + approximations. The proof that the resulting sequence is Cauchy is the standard + one: to obtain an approximation up to eps it is necessary to approximate both + summands up to eps/2. The proof that the function is well defined w.r.t. the + omitted equivalence relation is also omitted. *) +definition Rplus: R → R → R ≝ + λr1,r2. mk_R (λn. r1 n + r2 n) …. + #eps + cases (isCauchy r1 (Qhalve eps)) #n1 #H1 + cases (isCauchy r2 (Qhalve eps)) #n2 #H2 + %{(max n1 n2)} #i #j #K1 #K2 @(transitive_Qleq … (Qdist_Qplus …)) + <(Qplus_Qhalve_Qhalve eps) @Qleq_Qplus [@H1 @le_maxl | @H2 @le_maxr] + [2,6: @K1 |4,8: @K2] +qed. + +(* Example 3: traces of a program *) +(* Let us introduce a very simple programming language whose instructions + can test and set a single implicit variable. *) +inductive instr: Type[0] ≝ + p_set: ℕ → instr (* sets the variable to a constant *) + | p_incr: instr (* increments the variable *) + | p_while: list instr → instr. (* repeats until the variable is 0 *) + +(* The status of a program as the values of the variable and the list of + instructions to be executed. *) +definition state ≝ ℕ × (list instr). + +(* The transition function from a state to the next one. *) +inductive next: state → state → Prop ≝ + n_set: ∀n,k,o. next 〈o,(p_set n)::k〉 〈n,k〉 + | n_incr: ∀k,o. next 〈o,p_incr::k〉 〈S o,k〉 + | n_while_exit: ∀b,k. next 〈0,(p_while b)::k〉 〈0,k〉 + | n_while_loop: ∀b,k,o. next 〈S o,(p_while b)::k〉 〈S o,b@(p_while b)::k〉. + +(* A diverging trace is a sequence of states such that the n+1-th state is + obtained executing one step from the n-th state *) +record div_trace: Type[0] ≝ + { div_tr: seq state + ; div_well_formed: ∀n. next (div_tr n) (div_tr (S n)) + }. + +(* The previous definition of trace is not very computable: we cannot write + a program that given an initial state returns its trace. To write that function, + we first write a computable version of next, called step. *) +definition step: state → option state ≝ + λs. let 〈o,k〉 ≝ s in + match k with + [ nil ⇒ None ? + | cons hd k ⇒ + Some … match hd with + [ p_set n ⇒ 〈n,k〉 + | p_incr ⇒ 〈S o,k〉 + | p_while b ⇒ + match o with + [ O ⇒ 〈0,k〉 + | S p ⇒ 〈S p,b@(p_while b)::k〉 ]]]. + +theorem step_next: ∀o,n. step o = Some … n → next o n. + * #o * [ #n normalize #abs destruct ] + * normalize + [ #n #tl * #n' #tl' + | #tl * #n' #tl' + | #b #tl * #n' #tl' cases o normalize [2: #r]] + #EQ destruct // +qed. + +theorem next_step: ∀o,n. next o n → step o = Some … n. + * #o #k * #n #k' #H inversion H normalize + [ #v #tl #n' + | #tl #n' + | #b #tl] + #EQ1 #EQ2 // +qed. + +(* Termination is the archetipal undecidable problem. Therefore there is no + function that given an initial state returns the diverging trace if the program + diverges or fails in case of error. The best we can do is to give an alternative + definition of trace that captures both diverging and converging computations. *) +record trace: Type[0] ≝ + { tr: seq (option state) + ; well_formed: ∀n,s. tr n = Some … s → tr (S n) = step s + }. + +(* The trace is diverging if every state is not final. *) +definition diverging: trace → Prop ≝ + λt. ∀n. tr t n ≠ None ?. + +(* The two definitions of diverging traces are equivalent. *) +theorem div_trace_to_diverging_trace: + ∀d: div_trace. ∃t: trace. diverging t ∧ tr t 0 = Some … (div_tr d 0). + #d %{(mk_trace (λn.Some ? (div_tr d n)) …)} + [2: % // #n % #abs destruct + | #n #s #EQ destruct lapply (div_well_formed d n) /2 by div_well_formed, next_step/ ] +qed. + +theorem diverging_trace_to_div_trace: + ∀t: trace. diverging t → ∃d: div_trace. tr t 0 = Some … (div_tr d 0). + #t #H % + [ % [ #n lapply (H n) -H cases (tr t n) [ * #abs cases (abs …) // ] #s #_ @s + | #n lapply (well_formed t n) + lapply (H n) cases (tr t n) normalize [ * #abs cases (abs …) // ] + * #o #k #_ lapply (H (S n)) -H + cases (tr t (S n)) normalize + [ * #abs cases (abs …) // ] * #o' #k' #_ #EQ lapply (EQ … (refl …)) -EQ + normalize cases k normalize [ #abs destruct ] #hd #tl #EQ destruct -EQ + @step_next >e0 // ] + | lapply (H O) -H cases (tr t O) [ * #abs cases (abs …) // ] // ] +qed. + +(* However, given an initial state we can always compute a trace. + Note that every time the n-th element of the trace is accessed, all the + elements in position ≤ n are computed too. *) +let rec compute_trace_seq (s:state) (n:nat) on n : option state ≝ + match n with + [ O ⇒ Some … s + | S m ⇒ + match compute_trace_seq s m with + [ None ⇒ None … + | Some o ⇒ step o ]]. + +definition compute_trace: ∀s:state. Σt:trace. tr t 0 = Some … s. + #s % + [ %{(compute_trace_seq s)} + #n #o elim n [ whd in ⊢ (??%? → ??%?); #EQ destruct // ] + -n #n #_ #H whd in ; whd in ⊢ (??%?); >H // + | // ] +qed. + +(*** Infinite data types as coinductive types ***) + +(* All the previous examples were handled very easily via sequences + declared as functions. A few critics can be made to this approach though: + 1. the sequence allows for random access. In many situations, however, the + elements of the sequence are meant to be read one after the other, in + increasing order of their position. Moreover, the elements are meant to be + consumed (read) linearly, i.e. just once. This suggests a more efficient + implementation where sequences are implemented with state machines that + emit the next value and enter a new state every time they are read. Indeed, + some programming languages like OCaml differentiate (possibly infinite) + lists, that are immutable, from mutable streams whose only access operation + yields the head and turns the stream into its tail. Data streams read from + the network are a typical example of streams: the previously read values are + not automatically memoized and are lost if not saved when read. Files on + disk are also usually read via streams to avoid keeping all of them in main + memory. Another typical case where streams are used is that of diverging + computations: in place of generating at once an infinite sequence of values, + a function is turned into a stream and asking the next element of the stream + runs one more iteration of the function to produce the next output (often + an approximation). + 2. if a sequence computes the n-th entry by recursively calling itself on every + entry less than n, accessing the n-th entry requires re-computation of all + entries in position ≤ n, which is very inefficient. + 3. by representing an infinite object as a collection of approximations, the + structure of the object is lost. This was not evident in the previous + examples because in all cases the intrinsic structure of the datatype was + just that of being ordered and sequences capture the order well. Imagine, + however, that we want to represent an infinite binary tree of elements of + type A with the previous technique. We need to associate to each position + in the infinite tree an element of type A. A position in the tree is itself + a path from the root to the node of interest. Therefore the infinite tree + is represented as the function (ℕ → 𝔹) → A where 𝔹 are the booleans and the + tree structure is already less clear. Suppose now that the binary tree may + not be full, i.e. some nodes can have less than two children. Representing + such a tree is definitely harder. We may for example use the data type + (N → 𝔹) → option A where None would be associated to the position + b1 ... bn if a node in such position does not exist. However, we would need + to add the invariant that if b1 ... bn is undefined (i.e. assigned to None), + so are all suffixes b1 ... bn b_{n+1} ... b_{n+j}. + + The previous observations suggest the need for primitive infinite datatypes + in the language, usually called coinductive types or codata. Matita allows + to declare coinductive type with the same syntax used for inductive types, + just replacing the keywork inductive with coinductive. Semantically, the two + declarations differ because a coinductive type also contains infinite + inhabitants that respect the typechecking rules. +*) + +(* Example 1 revisited: non terminated streams of elements of type A *) +coinductive streamseq (A: Type[0]) : Type[0] ≝ + sscons: A → streamseq A → streamseq A. + +(* Coinductive types can be inhabited by infinite data using coinductive + definitions, introduced by the keyword let corec. The syntax of let corec + definitions is the same of let rec definitions, but for the declarations + of the recursive argument. While let rec definitions are recursive definition + that are strictly decreasing on the recursive argument, let corec definitions + are productive recursive definitions. A recursive definition is productive + if, when fully applied to its arguments, it reduces in a finite amount of time + to a constructor of a coinductive type. + + Let's see some simple examples of coinductive definitions of corecursive + streamseqs. *) + +(* The streamseq 0 0 0 ... + Note that all_zeros is not a function and does not have any argument. + The definition is clearly productive because it immediately reduces to + the constructor sscons. *) +let corec all_zeros: streamseq nat ≝ sscons nat 0 all_zeros. + +(* The streamseq n (n+1) (n+2) ... + The definition behaves like an automaton with state n. When the + streamseq is pattern matched, the current value n is returned as head + of the streamseq and the tail of the streamseq is the automaton with + state (S n). Therefore obtaining the n-th tail of the stream requires O(n) + operation, but every further access to its value only costs O(1). Moreover, + in the future the implementation of Matita could automatically memoize + streams so that obtaining the n-th element would also be an O(1) operation + if the same element was previously accessed at least once. This is what + is currently done in the implementation of the Coq system for example. +*) +let corec from_n (n:ℕ) : streamseq nat ≝ sscons … n (from_n (S n)). + +(* In order to retrieve the n-th element from a streamseq we can write a + function recursive over n. *) +let rec streamseq_nth (A: Type[0]) (s: streamseq A) (n:ℕ) on n : A ≝ + match s with [ sscons hd tl ⇒ + match n with [ O ⇒ hd | S m ⇒ streamseq_nth … tl m ]]. + +(* Any sequence can be turned into the equivalent streamseq and the other + way around. *) +let corec streamseq_of_seq (A: Type[0]) (s: seq A) (n:ℕ) : streamseq A ≝ + sscons … (s n) (streamseq_of_seq A s (S n)). + +lemma streamseq_of_seq_ok: + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀s: seq A. ∀m,n. + streamseq_nth A (streamseq_of_seq … s n) m = s (m+n). + #A #s #m elim m normalize // +qed. + +definition seq_of_streamseq: ∀A:Type[0]. streamseq A → seq A ≝ streamseq_nth. + +lemma seq_of_streamseq_ok: + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀s: streamseq A. ∀n. seq_of_streamseq … s n = streamseq_nth … s n. + // +qed. + +(* Example 2 revisited: Real numbers as Cauchy sequences and their addition. + We closely follow example 2 replacing sequences with streamseqs. +*) + +definition Qstreamseq: Type[0] ≝ streamseq Q. + +definition Qstreamseq_nth ≝ streamseq_nth Q. + +(* The Cauchy property *) +definition Cauchy': Qstreamseq → Prop ≝ + λR:Qstreamseq. ∀eps. ∃n. ∀i,j. n ≤ i → n ≤ j → Qdist (Qstreamseq_nth R i) (Qstreamseq_nth R j) ≤ eps. + +(* A real number is an equivalence class of Cauchy sequences. Here we just + define the carrier, omitting the necessary equivalence relation for the + quotient. *) +record R': Type[0] ≝ + { r': Qstreamseq + ; isCauchy': Cauchy' r' + }. + +(* The following coercion is used to write r n to extract the n-th approximation + from the real number r *) +coercion R_to_fun' : ∀r:R'. ℕ → Q ≝ (λr. Qstreamseq_nth (r' r)) on _r:R' to ?. + +(* Pointwise addition over Qstreamseq defined by corecursion. + The definition is productive because, when Rplus_streamseq is applied to + two closed values of type Qstreamseq, it will reduce to sscons. *) +let corec Rplus_streamseq (x:Qstreamseq) (y:Qstreamseq) : Qstreamseq ≝ + match x with [ sscons hdx tlx ⇒ + match y with [ sscons hdy tly ⇒ + sscons … (hdx + hdy) (Rplus_streamseq tlx tly) ]]. + +(* The following lemma was for free using sequences. In the case of streamseqs + it must be proved by induction over the index because Qstreamseq_nth is defined by + recursion over the index. *) +lemma Qstreamseq_nth_Rplus_streamseq: + ∀i,x,y. + Qstreamseq_nth (Rplus_streamseq x y) i = Qstreamseq_nth x i + Qstreamseq_nth y i. + #i elim i [2: #j #IH] * #xhd #xtl * #yhd #ytl // normalize @IH +qed. + +(* The proof that the resulting sequence is Cauchy is exactly the same we + used for sequences, up to two applications of the previous lemma. *) +definition Rplus': R' → R' → R' ≝ + λr1,r2. mk_R' (Rplus_streamseq (r' r1) (r' r2)) …. + #eps + cases (isCauchy' r1 (Qhalve eps)) #n1 #H1 + cases (isCauchy' r2 (Qhalve eps)) #n2 #H2 + %{(max n1 n2)} #i #j #K1 #K2 + >Qstreamseq_nth_Rplus_streamseq >Qstreamseq_nth_Rplus_streamseq + @(transitive_Qleq … (Qdist_Qplus …)) + <(Qplus_Qhalve_Qhalve eps) @Qleq_Qplus [@H1 @le_maxl | @H2 @le_maxr] + [2,6: @K1 |4,8: @K2] +qed. + +(***** Intermezzo: the dynamics of coinductive data ********) + +(* Let corec definitions, like let rec definitions, are a form of recursive + definition where the definiens occurs in the definiendum. Matita compares + types up to reduction and reduction always allows the expansion of non recursive + definitions. If it also allowed the expansion of recursive definitions, reduction + could diverge and type checking would become undecidable. For example, + we defined all_zeros as "sscons … 0 all_zeros". If the system expanded all + occurrences of all_zeros, it would expand it forever to + "sscons … 0 (sscons … 0 (sscons … 0 …))". + + In order to avoid divergence, recursive definitions are only expanded when a + certain condition is met. In the case of a let-rec defined function f that is + recursive on its n-th argument, f is only expanded when it occurs in an + application (f t1 ... tn ...) and tn is (the application of) a constructor. + Termination is guaranteed by the combination of this restriction and f being + guarded by destructors: the application (f t1 ... tn ...) can reduce to a term + that contains another application (f t1' ... tn' ...) but the size of tn' + (roughly the number of nested constructors) will be smaller than the size of tn + eventually leading to termination. + + Dual restrictions are put on let corec definitions. If f is a let-rec defined + term, f is only expanded when it occurs in the term "match f t1 ... tn with ...". + To better see the duality, that is not syntactically perfect, note that: in + the recursive case f destructs terms and is expanded only when applied to a + constructor; in the co-recursive case f constructs terms and is expanded only + when it becomes argument of the match destructor. Termination is guaranteed + by the combination of this restriction and f being productive: the term + "match f t1 ... tn ... with" will reduce in a finite amount of time to + a match applied to a constructor, whose reduction can expose another application + of f, but not another "match f t1' .. tn' ... width". Therefore, since no + new matches around f can be created by reduction, the number of + destructors that surrounds the application of f decreases at every step, + eventually leading to termination. + + Even if a coinductively defined f does not reduce in every context to its + definiendum, it is possible to prove that the definiens is equal to its + definiendum. The trick is to prove first an eta-expansion lemma for the + inductive type that states that an inhabitant of the inductive type is + equal to the one obtained destructing and rebuilding it via a match. The proof + is simply by cases over the inhabitant. Let's see an example. *) + +lemma eta_streamseq: + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀s: streamseq A. + match s with [ sscons hd tl ⇒ sscons … hd tl ] = s. + #A * // +qed. + +(* In order to prove now that the definiens of all_zeros is equal to its + definiendum, it suffices to rewrite it using the eta_streamseq lemma in order + to insert around the definiens the match destructor that triggers its + expansion. *) +lemma all_zeros_expansion: all_zeros = sscons … 0 all_zeros. + <(eta_streamseq ? all_zeros) in ⊢ (??%?); // +qed. + +(* Expansions lemmas as the one just presented are almost always required to + progress in non trivial proofs, as we will see in the next example. Instead + the equivalent expansions lemmas for let-rec definitions are rarely required. +*) + +(* Example 3 revisited: traces of a program. *) + +(* A diverging trace is a streamseq of states such that the n+1-th state is + obtained executing one step from the n-th state. The definition of + div_well_formed' is the same we already used for sequences, but on + streamseqs. *) + +definition div_well_formed' : streamseq state → Prop ≝ + λs: streamseq state. + ∀n. next (streamseq_nth … s n) (streamseq_nth … s (S n)). + +record div_trace': Type[0] ≝ + { div_tr':> streamseq state + ; div_well_formed'': div_well_formed' div_tr' + }. + +(* The well formedness predicate over streamseq can also be redefined using as a + coinductive predicate. A streamseq of states is well formed if the second + element is the next of the first and the stream without the first element + is recursively well formed. *) +coinductive div_well_formed_co: streamseq state → Prop ≝ + is_next: + ∀hd1:state. ∀hd2:state. ∀tl:streamseq state. + next hd1 hd2 → div_well_formed_co (sscons … hd2 tl) → + div_well_formed_co (sscons … hd1 (sscons … hd2 tl)). + +(* Note that Matita automatically proves the inversion principles for every + coinductive type, but no general coinduction principle. That means that + the elim tactic does not work when applied to a coinductive type. Inversion + and cases are the only ways to eliminate a coinductive hypothesis. *) + +(* A proof of div_well_formed cannot be built stacking a finite + number of constructors. The type can only be inhabited by a coinductive + definition. As an example, we show the equivalence between the two + definitions of well formedness for streamseqs. *) + +(* A div_well_formed' stream is also div_well_formed_co. We write the proof + term explicitly, omitting the subterms that prove "next hd1 hd2" and + "div_well_formed' (sscond … hd2 tl)". Therefore we will obtain two proof + obligations. The given proof term is productive: if we apply it to a closed + term of type streamseq state and a proof that it is well formed, the two + matches in head position will reduce and the lambda-abstraction will be + consumed, exposing the is_next constructor. *) + +let corec div_well_formed_to_div_well_formed_co + (s: streamseq state): div_well_formed' s → div_well_formed_co s ≝ + match s with [ sscons hd1 tl1 ⇒ + match tl1 with [ sscons hd2 tl ⇒ + λH: div_well_formed' (sscons … hd1 (sscons … hd2 tl)). + is_next … (div_well_formed_to_div_well_formed_co (sscons … hd2 tl) …) ]]. +[ (* First proof obligation: next hd1 hd2 *) @(H 0) +| (* Second proof obligation: div_well_formed' (sscons … hd2 tl) *) @(λn. H (S n)) ] +qed. + +(* A div_well_formed_co stream is also div_well_formed'. This time the proof is + by induction over the index and inversion over the div_well_formed_co + hypothesis. *) +theorem div_well_formed_co_to_div_well_formed: + ∀s: streamseq state. div_well_formed_co s → div_well_formed' s. + #s #H #n lapply H -H lapply s -s elim n [2: #m #IH] + * #hd1 * #hd2 #tl normalize #H inversion H #hd1' #hd2' #tl' #Hnext #Hwf + #eq destruct /2/ +qed. + +(* Like for sequences, because of undecidability of termination there is no + function that given an initial state returns the diverging trace if the program + diverges or fails in case of error. We need a new data type to represent a + possibly infinite, possibly terminated stream of elements. Such data type is + usually called stream and can be defined elegantly as a coinductive type. *) +coinductive stream (A: Type[0]) : Type[0] ≝ + snil: stream A + | scons: A → stream A → stream A. + +(* The definition of trace based on streams is more natural than that based + on sequences of optional states because there is no need of the invariant that + a None state is followed only by None states (to represent a terminated + sequence). Indeed, this is the first example where working with coinductive + types seems to yield advantages in terms of simplicity of the formalization. + However, in order to give the definition we first need to coinductively define + the well_formedness predicate, whose definition is more complex than the + previous one. *) +coinductive well_formed': stream state → Prop ≝ + wf_snil: ∀s. step s = None … → well_formed' (scons … s (snil …)) + | wf_scons: + ∀hd1,hd2,tl. + step hd1 = Some … hd2 → + well_formed' (scons … hd2 tl) → + well_formed' (scons … hd1 (scons … hd2 tl)). + +(* Note: we could have equivalently defined well_formed' avoiding coinduction + by defining a recursive function to retrieve the n-th element of the stream, + if any. From now on we will stick to coinductive predicates only to show more + examples of usage of coinduction. In a formalization, however, it is always + better to explore several alternatives and see which ones work best for the + problem at hand. *) + +record trace': Type[0] ≝ + { tr':> stream state + ; well_formed'': well_formed' tr' + }. + +(* The trace is diverging if every state is not final. Again, we show here + a coinductive definition. *) +coinductive diverging': stream state → Prop ≝ + mk_diverging': ∀hd,tl. diverging' tl → diverging' (scons … hd tl). + +(* The two coinductive definitions of diverging traces are equivalent. + To state the two results we first need a function to retrieve the head + from traces and diverging traces. *) +definition head_of_streamseq: ∀A:Type[0]. streamseq A → A ≝ + λA,s. match s with [ sscons hd _ ⇒ hd ]. + +definition head_of_stream: ∀A:Type[0]. stream A → option A ≝ + λA,s. match s with [ snil ⇒ None … | scons hd _ ⇒ Some … hd ]. + +(* A streamseq can be extracted from a diverging stream using corecursion. *) +let corec mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' + (s: stream state) : diverging' s → streamseq state ≝ + match s return λs. diverging' s → streamseq state + with + [ snil ⇒ λabs: diverging' (snil …). ? + | scons hd tl ⇒ λH. sscons ? hd (mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' tl …) ]. + [ cases (?:False) inversion abs #hd #tl #_ #abs' destruct + | inversion H #hd' #tl' #K #eq destruct @K ] +qed. + +(* An expansion lemma will be needed soon. *) +lemma mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace_expansion: + ∀hd,tl,H. ∃K. + mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' (scons state hd tl) H = + sscons … hd (mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' tl K). + #hd #tl #H cases (eta_streamseq … (mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' ??)) /2/ +qed. + +(* CSC: BUG CHE APPARE NEL PROSSIMO LEMMA AL MOMENTO DELLA QED. IL DEMONE + SERVE PER DEBUGGARE *) +axiom daemon: False. + +(* To complete the proof we need a final lemma: streamseqs extracted from + well formed diverging streams are well formed too. *) +let corec div_well_formed_co_mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace (t : stream state) : + ∀H:diverging' t. div_well_formed_co (mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' t H) ≝ + match t return λt. diverging' t → ? + with + [ snil ⇒ λabs. ? + | scons hd tl ⇒ λH. ? ]. +[ cases (?:False) inversion abs #hd #tl #_ #eq destruct +| cases (mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace_expansion … H) #H' #eq + lapply (sym_eq ??? … eq) #Req cases Req -Req -eq -H + cases tl in H'; + [ #abs cases (?:False) inversion abs #hd #tl #_ #eq destruct + | -tl #hd2 #tl #H + cases (mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' … H) #H' + #eq lapply (sym_eq ??? … eq) #Req cases Req -Req + % [2: (*CSC: BIG BUG HERE*) cases daemon (* cases eq @div_well_formed_co_mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace *) + | cases daemon ]]] +qed. + +theorem diverging_trace_to_div_trace': + ∀t: trace'. diverging' t → ∃d: div_trace'. + head_of_stream … t = Some … (head_of_streamseq … d). + #t #H % + [ %{(mk_diverging_trace_to_div_trace' … H)} + | cases t in H; * normalize // #abs cases (?:False) inversion abs + [ #s #_ #eq destruct | #hd1 #hd2 #tl #_ #_ #eq destruct ]] + + #n lapply (well_formed t n) + lapply (H n) cases (tr t n) normalize [ * #abs cases (abs …) // ] + * #o #k #_ lapply (H (S n)) -H + cases (tr t (S n)) normalize + [ * #abs cases (abs …) // ] * #o' #k' #_ #EQ lapply (EQ … (refl …)) -EQ + normalize cases k normalize [ #abs destruct ] #hd #tl #EQ destruct -EQ + @step_next >e0 // ] + | lapply (H O) -H cases (tr t O) [ * #abs cases (abs …) // ] // ] +qed. + +(* A stream can be extracted from a streamseq using corecursion. *) +let corec stream_of_streamseq (A: Type[0]) (s: streamseq A) : stream A ≝ + match s with [ sscons hd tl ⇒ scons … hd (stream_of_streamseq … tl) ]. + +(* The proof that the resulting stream is diverging also need corecursion.*) +let corec diverging_stream_of_streamseq (s: streamseq state) : + diverging' (stream_of_streamseq … s) ≝ + match s return λs. diverging' (stream_of_streamseq … s) + with [ sscons hd tl ⇒ mk_diverging' … ]. + mk_diverging' hd (stream_of_streamseq … tl) (diverging_stream_of_streamseq tl) ]. + + +theorem div_trace_to_diverging_trace': + ∀d: div_trace'. ∃t: trace'. diverging' t ∧ + head_of_stream … t = Some … (head_of_streamseq … d). + #d %{(mk_trace' (stream_of_streamseq … d) …)} + [2: % + [ + [2: cases d * // ] #n % #abs destruct + | #n #s #EQ destruct lapply (div_well_formed d n) /2 by div_well_formed, next_step/ ] +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') ]. *) + +(*lemma eta_streamseq: + ∀A:Type[0]. ∀s: streamseq A. + s = match s with [ sscons hd tl ⇒ sscons … hd tl ]. + #A * // +qed. + +lemma Rplus_streamseq_nf: + ∀xhd,xtl,yhd,ytl. + Rplus_streamseq (sscons … xhd xtl) (sscons … yhd ytl) = + sscons … (xhd + yhd) (Rplus_streamseq xtl ytl). + #xhd #xtl #yhd #ytl >(eta_streamseq Q (Rplus_streamseq …)) in ⊢ (??%?); // +qed.*) + -- 2.39.2