treesitter doesn't like block comments
This commit is contained in:
parent
e05c8e8a92
commit
ffc78ca1ff
1 changed files with 147 additions and 90 deletions
|
|
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
|||
[*
|
||||
* We need some basic logic, so I'm stealing this from <logic.pg>. See that file
|
||||
* for more details on how these work.
|
||||
*]
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- We need some basic logic, so I'm stealing this from <logic.pg>. See that file
|
||||
-- for more details on how these work.
|
||||
--
|
||||
|
||||
false : * := forall (A : *), A;
|
||||
false_elim (A : *) (contra : false) : A := contra A;
|
||||
|
|
@ -39,13 +39,13 @@ comp (A B C : *) (g : B -> C) (f : A -> B) (x : A) : C :=
|
|||
|
||||
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
[*
|
||||
* Next we can define equality. This is the same as in <logic.pg>. We get a
|
||||
* couple Peano axioms for free as theorems.
|
||||
*]
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- Next we can define equality. This is the same as in <logic.pg>. We get a
|
||||
-- couple Peano axioms for free as theorems.
|
||||
--
|
||||
|
||||
-- implies axiom 5
|
||||
-- (if `x : nat`, then `y : nat`, since we can only compare objects of the same type)
|
||||
-- (if x : nat, then y : nat, since we can only compare objects of the same type)
|
||||
eq (A : *) (x y : A) := forall (P : A -> *), P x -> P y;
|
||||
|
||||
-- axiom 2 (but as a theorem)
|
||||
|
|
@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ eq_sym (A : *) (x y : A) (Hxy : eq A x y) : eq A y x := fun (P : A -> *) (Hy : P
|
|||
eq_trans (A : *) (x y z : A) (Hxy : eq A x y) (Hyz : eq A y z) : eq A x z := fun (P : A -> *) (Hx : P x) =>
|
||||
Hyz P (Hxy P Hx);
|
||||
|
||||
-- This isn't an axiom, but is handy. If `x = y`, then `f x = f y`.
|
||||
-- This isn't an axiom, but is handy. If x = y, then f x = f y.
|
||||
eq_cong (A B : *) (x y : A) (f : A -> B) (H : eq A x y) : eq B (f x) (f y) :=
|
||||
fun (P : B -> *) (Hfx : P (f x)) =>
|
||||
H (fun (a : A) => P (f a)) Hfx;
|
||||
|
|
@ -69,51 +69,51 @@ assoc (A : *) (op : binop A) := forall (c a b : A),
|
|||
|
||||
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
[*
|
||||
* Now we can define the Peano axioms. Unlike with equality, perga is not
|
||||
* powerful enough to construct the natural numbers (or at least to prove the
|
||||
* Peano axioms as theorems from a definition constructible in perga). However,
|
||||
* working with axioms is extremely common in math. As such, perga has a system
|
||||
* for doing just that, namely the *axiom* system.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* In a definition, rather than give a value for the term, we can give it the
|
||||
* value `axiom`, in which case a type ascription is mandatory. Perga will then
|
||||
* trust our type ascription, and assume going forward that the identifier we
|
||||
* defined is a value of the asserted type. For example, we will use the axiom
|
||||
* system to assert the existence of a type of natural numbers
|
||||
*]
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- Now we can define the Peano axioms. Unlike with equality, perga is not
|
||||
-- powerful enough to construct the natural numbers (or at least to prove the
|
||||
-- Peano axioms as theorems from a definition constructible in perga). However,
|
||||
-- working with axioms is extremely common in math. As such, perga has a system
|
||||
-- for doing just that, namely the *axiom* system.
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- In a definition, rather than give a value for the term, we can give it the
|
||||
-- value axiom, in which case a type ascription is mandatory. Perga will then
|
||||
-- trust our type ascription, and assume going forward that the identifier we
|
||||
-- defined is a value of the asserted type. For example, we will use the axiom
|
||||
-- system to assert the existence of a type of natural numbers
|
||||
--
|
||||
|
||||
nat : * := axiom;
|
||||
|
||||
[*
|
||||
* As you can imagine, this can be risky. For instance, there's nothing stopping
|
||||
* us from saying
|
||||
* uh_oh : false := axiom;
|
||||
* or stipulating more subtly contradictory axioms. As such, as in mathematics,
|
||||
* axioms should be used with care.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* There's another problem with axioms, namely that perga cannot do any
|
||||
* computations with axioms. The more you can define within perga natively, the
|
||||
* better, as computations done without axioms can be utilized by perga. For
|
||||
* example, in <computation.pg>, we define the natural numbers as Church
|
||||
* numerals entirely within perga. There, the proof that `1 + 1 = 2` is just
|
||||
* `eq_refl`, since they reduce to the same thing. Here, `1 + 1 = 2` will
|
||||
* require a proof, since perga is unable to do computations with things defined
|
||||
* as axioms.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* With these warnings in place, the Peano axioms are proven to be consistent,
|
||||
* so we should be fine. I'm formalizing the second order axioms given in the
|
||||
* wikipedia article on the Peano axioms
|
||||
* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms).
|
||||
*]
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- As you can imagine, this can be risky. For instance, there's nothing stopping
|
||||
-- us from saying
|
||||
-- uh_oh : false := axiom;
|
||||
-- or stipulating more subtly contradictory axioms. As such, as in mathematics,
|
||||
-- axioms should be used with care.
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- There's another problem with axioms, namely that perga cannot do any
|
||||
-- computations with axioms. The more you can define within perga natively, the
|
||||
-- better, as computations done without axioms can be utilized by perga. For
|
||||
-- example, in <computation.pg>, we define the natural numbers as Church
|
||||
-- numerals entirely within perga. There, the proof that 1 + 1 = 2 is just
|
||||
-- eq_refl, since they reduce to the same thing. Here, 1 + 1 = 2 will
|
||||
-- require a proof, since perga is unable to do computations with things defined
|
||||
-- as axioms.
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- With these warnings in place, the Peano axioms are proven to be consistent,
|
||||
-- so we should be fine. I'm formalizing the second order axioms given in the
|
||||
-- wikipedia article on the Peano axioms
|
||||
-- (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms).
|
||||
--
|
||||
|
||||
-- axiom 1: 0 is a natural number
|
||||
zero : nat := axiom;
|
||||
|
||||
-- axiom 6: For every `n`, `S n` is a natural number.
|
||||
-- axiom 6: For every n, S n is a natural number.
|
||||
suc (n : nat) : nat := axiom;
|
||||
|
||||
-- axiom 7: If `S n = S m`, then `n = m`.
|
||||
-- axiom 7: If S n = S m, then n = m.
|
||||
suc_inj : forall (n m : nat), eq nat (suc n) (suc m) -> eq nat n m := axiom;
|
||||
|
||||
-- axiom 8: No successor of any natural number is zero.
|
||||
|
|
@ -126,16 +126,16 @@ nat_ind : forall (φ : nat -> *), φ zero -> (forall (n : nat), φ n -> φ (suc
|
|||
|
||||
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
[*
|
||||
* Now that we have stipulated these axioms, we are free to use them to make
|
||||
* definitions, prove theorems, etc.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Our first theorem, as a warm up, is to prove that every natural number is
|
||||
* either 0 or the successor of another natural number.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* First, we will make a bunch of abbreviations, since these terms get really
|
||||
* long and complicated really quickly.
|
||||
*]
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- Now that we have stipulated these axioms, we are free to use them to make
|
||||
-- definitions, prove theorems, etc.
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- Our first theorem, as a warm up, is to prove that every natural number is
|
||||
-- either 0 or the successor of another natural number.
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- First, we will make a bunch of abbreviations, since these terms get really
|
||||
-- long and complicated really quickly.
|
||||
--
|
||||
|
||||
-- Some abbreviations for common numbers.
|
||||
one : nat := suc zero;
|
||||
|
|
@ -144,17 +144,17 @@ three : nat := suc two;
|
|||
four : nat := suc three;
|
||||
five : nat := suc four;
|
||||
|
||||
-- First, the predecessor of `n` is `m` if `n = suc m`.
|
||||
-- First, the predecessor of n is m if n = suc m.
|
||||
pred (n m : nat) : * := eq nat n (suc m);
|
||||
|
||||
-- Our claim is a disjunction, whose first option is that `n = 0`.
|
||||
-- Our claim is a disjunction, whose first option is that n = 0.
|
||||
szc_l (n : nat) := eq nat n zero;
|
||||
|
||||
-- The second option is that `n` has a predecessor.
|
||||
-- The second option is that n has a predecessor.
|
||||
szc_r (n : nat) := exists nat (pred n);
|
||||
|
||||
-- So the claim we are trying to prove is that either one of the above options
|
||||
-- holds for every `n`.
|
||||
-- holds for every n.
|
||||
szc (n : nat) := or (szc_l n) (szc_r n);
|
||||
|
||||
-- And here's our proof!
|
||||
|
|
@ -164,31 +164,31 @@ suc_or_zero : forall (n : nat), szc n :=
|
|||
-- For the base case, the first option holds, i.e. 0 = 0
|
||||
(or_intro_l (szc_l zero) (szc_r zero) (eq_refl nat zero))
|
||||
|
||||
-- For the inductive case, suppose the theorem holds for `n`.
|
||||
-- For the inductive case, suppose the theorem holds for n.
|
||||
(fun (n : nat) (_ : szc n) =>
|
||||
-- Then the right option holds for `suc n`, since `suc n` is the
|
||||
-- successor of `n`
|
||||
-- Then the right option holds for suc n, since suc n is the
|
||||
-- successor of n
|
||||
or_intro_r (szc_l (suc n)) (szc_r (suc n))
|
||||
(exists_intro nat (pred (suc n)) n (eq_refl nat (suc n))));
|
||||
|
||||
[*
|
||||
* Before we continue one to defining addition, we need one more bunch of
|
||||
* axioms. Addition is normally defined recursively, which is difficult without
|
||||
* inductive definitions. I'm pretty sure this axiom is derivable from the
|
||||
* others, but I've spent a very long time trying to derive it, and it has
|
||||
* proven extremely difficult. I'm still convinced it's possible, just
|
||||
* prohibitively difficult and tedious without further language features
|
||||
* (implicit arguments and let bindings would help a ton).
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Normally, we define recursive functions `f : nat -> A` in the following format:
|
||||
* f 0 = fzero
|
||||
* f (suc n) = fsuc n (f n)
|
||||
* More concretely, we have two equations, one for each possible case for `n`,
|
||||
* i.e. either zero or a successor. In the successor case, the value of
|
||||
* `f (suc n)` can depend on the value of `f n`. The recursion axioms below
|
||||
* assert that for any such pair of equations, there exists a unique function
|
||||
* satisfying said equations.
|
||||
*]
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- Before we continue one to defining addition, we need one more bunch of
|
||||
-- axioms. Addition is normally defined recursively, which is difficult without
|
||||
-- inductive definitions. I'm pretty sure this axiom is derivable from the
|
||||
-- others, but I've spent a very long time trying to derive it, and it has
|
||||
-- proven extremely difficult. I'm still convinced it's possible, just
|
||||
-- prohibitively difficult and tedious without further language features
|
||||
-- (implicit arguments and let bindings would help a ton).
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- Normally, we define recursive functions f : nat -> A in the following format:
|
||||
-- f 0 = fzero
|
||||
-- f (suc n) = fsuc n (f n)
|
||||
-- More concretely, we have two equations, one for each possible case for n,
|
||||
-- i.e. either zero or a successor. In the successor case, the value of
|
||||
-- f (suc n) can depend on the value of f n. The recursion axioms below
|
||||
-- assert that for any such pair of equations, there exists a unique function
|
||||
-- satisfying said equations.
|
||||
--
|
||||
|
||||
-- For any such equations, there exists a function.
|
||||
rec_def (A : *) (fzero : A) (fsuc : nat -> A -> A) : nat -> A := axiom;
|
||||
|
|
@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ rec_def_sat_suc (A : *) (fzero : A) (fsuc : nat -> A -> A) :
|
|||
rec_cond_suc A fzero fsuc (rec_def A fzero fsuc) := axiom;
|
||||
|
||||
-- And, finally, this function is unique in the sense that if any other function
|
||||
-- also satisfies the equations, it takes the same values as `rec_def`.
|
||||
-- also satisfies the equations, it takes the same values as rec_def.
|
||||
rec_def_unique (A : *) (fzero : A) (fsuc : nat -> A -> A) (f g : nat -> A) :
|
||||
rec_cond_zero A fzero fsuc f ->
|
||||
rec_cond_suc A fzero fsuc f ->
|
||||
|
|
@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ rec_def_unique (A : *) (fzero : A) (fsuc : nat -> A -> A) (f g : nat -> A) :
|
|||
-- multiple times.
|
||||
psuc (_ r : nat) := suc r;
|
||||
|
||||
-- And here's `plus`!
|
||||
-- And here's plus!
|
||||
plus (n : nat) : nat -> nat := rec_def nat n psuc;
|
||||
|
||||
-- The first equation manifests itself as the familiar
|
||||
|
|
@ -251,13 +251,13 @@ one_plus_one_two : eq nat (plus one one) two :=
|
|||
-- suc (1 + zero) = suc one
|
||||
(eq_cong nat nat (plus one zero) one suc (plus_0_r one));
|
||||
|
||||
[*
|
||||
* We have successfully defined addition! Note that evaluating `1 + 1` to `2`
|
||||
* requires a proof, unfortunately, since this computation isn't visible to
|
||||
* perga.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* We will now prove a couple standard properties of addition.
|
||||
*]
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- We have successfully defined addition! Note that evaluating 1 + 1 to 2
|
||||
-- requires a proof, unfortunately, since this computation isn't visible to
|
||||
-- perga.
|
||||
--
|
||||
-- We will now prove a couple standard properties of addition.
|
||||
--
|
||||
|
||||
-- First, associativity, namely that n + (m + p) = (n + m) + p.
|
||||
plus_assoc : assoc nat plus :=
|
||||
|
|
@ -303,3 +303,60 @@ plus_assoc : assoc nat plus :=
|
|||
-- suc ((n + m) + p) = (n + m) + suc p
|
||||
(eq_sym nat (plus (plus n m) (suc p)) (suc (plus (plus n m) p))
|
||||
(plus_s_r (plus n m) p)))));
|
||||
|
||||
-- Up next is commutativity, but we will need a couple lemmas first.
|
||||
|
||||
-- First, we will show that 0 + n = n.
|
||||
plus_0_l : forall (n : nat), eq nat (plus zero n) n :=
|
||||
-- We prove this by induction on n.
|
||||
nat_ind (fun (n : nat) => eq nat (plus zero n) n)
|
||||
-- base case: WTS 0 + 0 = 0
|
||||
-- This is just plus_0_r 0
|
||||
(plus_0_r zero)
|
||||
|
||||
-- inductive case
|
||||
(fun (n : nat) (IH : eq nat (plus zero n) n) =>
|
||||
-- WTS 0 + (suc n) = suc n
|
||||
-- 0 + (suc n) = suc (0 + n) = suc n
|
||||
eq_trans nat (plus zero (suc n)) (suc (plus zero n)) (suc n)
|
||||
-- 0 + (suc n) = suc (0 + n)
|
||||
(plus_s_r zero n)
|
||||
|
||||
-- suc (0 + n) = suc n
|
||||
(eq_cong nat nat (plus zero n) n suc IH));
|
||||
|
||||
-- Next, we will show that (suc n) + m = suc (n + m).
|
||||
plus_s_l (n : nat) : forall (m : nat), eq nat (plus (suc n) m) (suc (plus n m)) :=
|
||||
-- We proceed by induction on m.
|
||||
nat_ind (fun (m : nat) => eq nat (plus (suc n) m) (suc (plus n m)))
|
||||
-- base case: (suc n) + 0 = suc (n + 0)
|
||||
-- (suc n) + 0 = suc n = suc (n + 0)
|
||||
(eq_trans nat (plus (suc n) zero) (suc n) (suc (plus n zero))
|
||||
-- (suc n) + 0 = suc n
|
||||
(plus_0_r (suc n))
|
||||
|
||||
-- suc n = suc (n + 0)
|
||||
(eq_cong nat nat n (plus n zero) suc
|
||||
-- n = n + 0
|
||||
(eq_sym nat (plus n zero) n (plus_0_r n))))
|
||||
|
||||
-- inductive case
|
||||
-- IH = suc n + m = suc (n + m)
|
||||
(fun (m : nat) (IH : eq nat (plus (suc n) m) (suc (plus n m))) =>
|
||||
-- WTS suc n + suc m = suc (n + suc m)
|
||||
-- suc n + suc m = suc (suc n + m)
|
||||
-- = suc (suc (n + m))
|
||||
-- = suc (n + suc m)
|
||||
(eq_trans nat (plus (suc n) (suc m)) (suc (plus (suc n) m)) (suc (plus n (suc m)))
|
||||
-- suc n + suc m = suc (suc n + m)
|
||||
(plus_s_r (suc n) m)
|
||||
|
||||
-- suc (suc n + m) = suc (n + suc m)
|
||||
(eq_trans nat (suc (plus (suc n) m)) (suc (suc (plus n m))) (suc (plus n (suc m)))
|
||||
-- suc (suc n + m) = suc (suc (n + m))
|
||||
(eq_cong nat nat (plus (suc n) m) (suc (plus n m)) suc IH)
|
||||
|
||||
-- suc (suc (n + m)) = suc (n + suc m)
|
||||
(eq_cong nat nat (suc (plus n m)) (plus n (suc m)) suc
|
||||
-- suc (n + m) = n + suc m
|
||||
(eq_sym nat (plus n (suc m)) (suc (plus n m)) (plus_s_r n m))))));
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue