*To*: Manuel Eberl <eberlm at in.tum.de>*Subject*: Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors*From*: "Traytel Dmitriy" <traytel at inf.ethz.ch>*Date*: Sun, 3 May 2020 09:46:40 +0000*Accept-language*: de-DE, de-CH, en-US*Cc*: "cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk" <cl-isabelle-users at lists.cam.ac.uk>*In-reply-to*: <2196b1bf-b197-213d-84dd-2fc26587182a@in.tum.de>*References*: <c589df10-64bc-a330-aa92-7c55a31e23d5@in.tum.de> <D916632E-8273-4528-9948-73EB0F65840F@cs.tcd.ie> <f7d513d8-be71-33bf-c58d-6055ece0b5ae@in.tum.de> <8fdd816aab574465943b51a475f8af05@chalmers.se> <048a75cb-79d1-e6e4-84ce-f1041bc04706@in.tum.de> <9cf305b5-706c-2e79-5627-b22707c221d4@in.tum.de> <93a5ac2a-9f71-ec10-5b42-5a9e9484baa9@in.tum.de> <8c84b763-4696-0821-682d-d18ad57d66d4@in.tum.de> <a0887c6e-2030-8648-2443-31dfbf949e05@in.tum.de> <2196b1bf-b197-213d-84dd-2fc26587182a@in.tum.de>*Thread-index*: AQHWH6MOljX+U/k3wUO8X+ixk/d4o6iTE8N2gAB9dgCAAAJygIABGNWAgAAD6ACAAAc+gIAAAPyAgAAdLoCAASjgAA==*Thread-topic*: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors

Hi Manuel, while your code works for the examples you show, it does not seem to handle nested recursion. See code below, with your simproc enabled. Also I would register it only for types that belong to the size class, i.e., simproc_setup datatype_no_proper_subterm ("(x :: 'a :: size) = y") = ‹K datatype_no_proper_subterm_simproc› Your retrieval of mutual types looks reasonable to me. As usual with Isabelle/ML, the most reliable documentation is the code. I am sympathetic to the proposal of having a 'proper subexpression' ordering defined for all datatypes (e.g., via a plugin similarly to size). Its usefulness goes beyond the acyclicity rules which this thread is about. In particular, the 'proper subexpression' ordering can be used for 'strong induction' or to prove termination of functions in cases when size does not exists. (Provided that we also have the fact that this ordering is wellfounded proved.) Something along the following lines: class subexp = fixes subexp :: "'a ⇒ 'a ⇒ bool" (infixl "⊏" 65) assumes wf: "wfP subexp" declare [[typedef_overloaded]] bnf_axiomatization 'a F [wits: "'a F"] datatype x = Ctor "x F" instantiation x :: subexp begin definition subexp_x :: "x ⇒ x ⇒ bool" where "subexp_x = tranclp (λx y. case y of Ctor f ⇒ x ∈ set_F f)" instance apply intro_classes apply (unfold subexp_x_def) apply (rule wfP_trancl) apply (rule wfPUNIVI) subgoal premises prems for P x apply (induct x) apply (rule prems[rule_format]) apply (simp only: x.case) done done end But one would like to have some reasonable simp rules for subexp_x (which may be as hard as the original problem that you are trying to solve). In particular, if F is itself a datatype that belongs to the subexp type class, its notion of subexp should be linked to the one of x. Dmitriy datatype 'a rtree = Leaf | Node 'a "'a rtree list" lemma "Node x (a # xs) ≠ a" apply simp? ―‹no_change› apply (rule size_neq_size_imp_neq) apply simp done lemma "Node x [c,a,b] ≠ a" apply simp? ―‹no_change› apply (rule size_neq_size_imp_neq) apply simp done On 2 May 2020, at 18:04, Manuel Eberl <eberlm at in.tum.de<mailto:eberlm at in.tum.de>> wrote: I attached a proof of concept (works with Isabelle 2020) using the simple size-based approach, including some example applications. It works well, although I'm not sure what the proper way to get the datatype information is (e.g. the list of all the constructors of the datatype and the associated other datatypes in case of mutual recursion). Is the ML interface of the BNF package documented anywhere (in particular this aspect)? Manuel On 02/05/2020 16:19, Manuel Eberl wrote: True, but after your suggestion, I realised that the solution with the "proper subexpression" relation (or, alternatively, the size function) combined with a simproc that produces these theorems on the spot is actually the superior approach in every respect. It's simpler, more general, and probably more performant. I can try to come up with a proof-of-concept implementation using the size function approach, since that needs no additional new features from the BNF package. Manuel On 02/05/2020 16:16, Tobias Nipkow wrote: A first version which only deals with depth 1 would already cover most of the practical cases. Tobias On 02/05/2020 15:50, Manuel Eberl wrote: That sounds like a good idea. However, if such a simproc is to work for any nesting of constructors,having pre-proven theorems for every constructor will not be enough.Instead, I suppose one would have to introduce a "proper-subexpression"relation for datatypes (e.g. xs < Cons x xs) along with a proof thatthis relation has the obvious properties (irreflexive, asymmetric,transitive). I guess that is something that only a datatype package plugin similar tothe one for the "size" function could provide. Having looked at the codebriefly, I think only the people who wrote the BNF package could (or atleast should) implement that. Alternatively, one could just use the size function (as someone alreadysuggested in this thread) to get pretty much the same thing, except thatit won't work for all datatypes (e.g. infinitely branching ones). Manuel On 02/05/2020 15:36, Tobias Nipkow wrote: I do think such rules are useful, esp if they are there by default. I suggest they are best handled by a simproc that is triggered by any "(=)" but that checks immediately if the two argumenst are of the appropriate type and form. That can be done very quickly (there are similar simprocs already). The simproc should work for any datatype and any degree of nesting of the constructors. Tobias On 01/05/2020 22:51, Manuel Eberl wrote: Firstly, I don't think these theorem is especially useful. You might have planned to add this to the simplifier, but its term net doesn't do any magic here. It will end up checking every term that matches "Cons x xs = ys" for whether "xs" can match "ys". I'm not sure if that matching is equality, alpha-equivalent or unifiable. I honestly never think /that/ much about the performance implications of simp rules (as long as they're unconditional). At least for lists, by the way, this is already a simp rule by default though, and lists are probably by far the most prevalent data type in the Isabelle universe. But you're certainly right that it would make sense to keep a look at this performance impact if one wanted to add these to the simp set for all datatypes by default, and I agree that the rules are probably not helpful /that/ often. Still, it might be nice to have them available nonetheless. Secondly, you can prove these theorems by using this handy trivial theorem : "size x ~= size y ==> x ~= y". Apparently that theorem has the name Sledgehammer.size_ne_size_imp_ne - presumably the sledgehammer uses it to prove such inequalities. It's even easier to prove it by induction. Plus, in fact, the "size" thing only works if the data type even has a sensible size function. That is not always the case, e.g. when you nest the datatype through a function. My main point however is that when you have a datatype with a dozen binary constructors, there's quite a bit of copying & pasting involved before you've proven all those theorems. Since it can (probably) be automated very easily, why not do that? Whether or not these should be simp lemmas by default is another question. Manuel <Foo.thy>

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Manuel Eberl

**References**:**[isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Manuel Eberl

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Manuel Eberl

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Thomas Sewell

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Manuel Eberl

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Tobias Nipkow

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Manuel Eberl

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Tobias Nipkow

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Manuel Eberl

**Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors***From:*Manuel Eberl

- Previous by Date: Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors
- Next by Date: [isabelle] Final call for contributions for the virtual WiL 2020 (4th Women in Logic Worskhop collocated with Petri Nets, IJCAR etc)
- Previous by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors
- Next by Thread: Re: [isabelle] Non-idempotence of datatype constructors
- Cl-isabelle-users May 2020 archives indexes sorted by: [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ date ]
- Cl-isabelle-users list archive Table of Contents
- More information about the Cl-isabelle-users mailing list