For some reason, my Coq file will not compile. I am using CoqIDE on Windows 10. When I use the Compile->Compile buffer tool, I get
On the other hand, when I use the Compile->Make tool, I get
The entire code for the file is given in the picture. It is also included below. Is there something it is missing? I looked high and low for some explanation of what was going on. All I found was this ominous statement from the Coq GitHub page:
"It is far from an easy task to compile Coq on Windows. Do not attempt unless you are a real Windows guru. If you need to work with non-released versions of Coq, or if you simply want to make your life easier, you may consider installing Coq into a virtualized Linux, as described below."
Module No1.
(*We first give the axioms of Principia
for the propositional calculus in *1.*)
Axiom MP1_1 : forall P Q : Prop,
(P -> Q)->P -> Q. (*Modus ponens*)
(*I did not bother with *1.11, which is
MP for propositions containing variables.*)
Axiom Taut1_2 : forall P : Prop,
P \/ P-> P. (*Tautology*)
Axiom Add1_3 : forall P Q : Prop,
Q -> Q \/ P. (*Addition*)
Axiom Perm1_4 : forall P Q : Prop,
P \/ Q -> Q \/ P. (*Permutation*)
Axiom Assoc1_5 : forall P Q R : Prop,
P \/ (Q \/ R) -> (P \/ Q) \/ R.
Axiom Sum1_6: forall P Q R : Prop,
(Q -> R) -> (Q \/ R -> P \/ R).
(*These are all the propositional axioms
of Principia Mathematica.*)
End No1.
Compiling a Coq program is verifying the proof. Often the compiled proof is never "run" like most other languages, it is just checked if it compiles, and it seems like your code does compile.
The message you found on Github is talking about compiling the Coq binaries, not a Coq source file like you are doing.
Related
I want to prove ~~(P \/ ~P) in Coq, which sounds somehow trivial... However I do not know where to go since there is not any single hypothesis.
I have written the following code which is not working, since it is giving the following exception [ltac_use_default] expected after [tactic] (in [tactic_command]).
Parameter P: Prop.
Section r20.
Lemma regra1: ~~(P \/ ~P).
Proof.
intro.
- cut P.
- cut ~P
Qed.
End r20.
It is little tricky one. Here is one way to prove it.
Parameter P : Prop.
Section r20.
Lemma regra1: ~~(P \/ ~P).
Proof.
unfold not. intros H1.
apply H1. right.
intros H2.
apply H1. left.
exact H2.
Qed.
End r20.
Is there an easy way to prove the following in Coq such as using only assumptions?
(P -> (Q /\ R)) -> (~Q) -> ~P
The question is a bit vague... Do you wonder if it is possible (yes), what the answer is (see Arthur's comment above), or how to think about solving these problems?
In the latter case, remember that the goal is to create a "lambda-term" with the specified type. You can either use "tactics" which are helping you construct the term "from the outside and inwards. It is good to do it by hand a couple of times to understand what is going on and what the tactics really do, which I think is why you are given this exercise.
If you look at your example,
(P -> (Q /\ R)) -> (~Q) -> ~P
you can see that it is a function of three (!) arguments. It is because the last type ~P really means P -> False, so the types of the arguments to the function that you need to create are
P -> (Q /\ R)
Q -> False
P
and the function should construct a term of type
False
You can create a term fun A B C => _ where A, B, C has the types above, (this is what the tactic intros does), and you need to come up with a term that should go into the hole _ by combining the terms A, B, C and the raw gallina constructions.
In this case, when you have managed to create a term of type Q /\ R you will have to "destruct" it to get the term of type Q, (Hint: for that you will have to use the match construction).
Hope this helps without spoiling the fun!
I would like to systematically remove all double negations which can appear in my hypotheses and goals. I know that ~~A -> Ais not a part of intuitionist logic, but the course I am taking is classical, so I don't mind.
I am aware that the mentioned axiom can be accessed by Coq.Logic.Classical_Prop.NNPPbut this axiom doesn't help removing double negation from more complex sentences such as say
H : ~ ~ A \/ (B /\ ~ C)
Preferably I would like to be able to apply a Ltac tactic to Hso it would transform into
H1 : A \/ (B /\ ~C).
Any help writing such a tactic or any other suggestions are much appreciated.
You can use the rewrite tactic, because it can rewrite with logical equivalences in logical contexts, i.e. it can do setoid rewriting. First, you'd need the following simple lemma:
From Coq Require Import Classical_Prop.
Lemma NNP_iff_P (P : Prop) : ~~ P <-> P.
Proof. split; [apply NNPP | intuition]. Qed.
Now, you can use NNP_iff_P to achieve what you want:
Section Example.
Context (A B C D : Prop).
Context (H : ~ ~ A \/ (B /\ ~ C)).
Goal ~~ A.
rewrite !NNP_iff_P in *.
Abort.
End Example.
! means "rewrite zero or many times, until no rewrites are possible" and in * means "apply the tactic in the context and to the goal".
I know excluded middle is impossible in the logic of construction. However, I am stuck when I try to show it in Coq.
Theorem em: forall P : Prop, ~P \/ P -> False.
My approach is:
intros P H.
unfold not in H.
intuition.
The system says following:
2 subgoals
P : Prop
H0 : P -> False
______________________________________(1/2)
False
______________________________________(2/2)
False
How should I proceed?
Thanks
What you are trying to construct is not the negation of LEM, which would say "there exists some P such that EM doesn't hold", but the claim that says that no proposition is decidable, which of course leads to a trivial inconsistency:
Axiom not_lem : forall (P : Prop), ~ (P \/ ~ P).
Goal False.
now apply (not_lem True); left.
No need to use the fancy double-negation lemma; as this is obviously inconsistent [imagine it would hold!]
The "classical" negation of LEM is indeed:
Axiom not_lem : exists (P : Prop), ~ (P \/ ~ P).
and it is not provable [otherwise EM wouldn't be admissible], but you can assume it safely; however it won't be of much utility for you.
One cannot refute the law of excluded middle (LEM) in Coq.
Let's suppose you proved your refutation of LEM. We model this kind of situation by postulating it as an axiom:
Axiom not_lem : forall (P : Prop), ~ (P \/ ~ P).
But then we also have a weaker version (double-negated) of LEM:
Lemma not_not_lem (P : Prop) :
~ ~ (P \/ ~ P).
Proof.
intros nlem. apply nlem.
right. intros p. apply nlem.
left. exact p.
Qed.
These two facts together would make Coq's logic inconsistent:
Lemma Coq_would_be_inconsistent :
False.
Proof.
apply (not_not_lem True).
apply not_lem.
Qed.
I'm coming from mathoverflow, but I don't have permission to comment on #Anton Trunov's answer. I think his answer is unjust, or at least incomplete: he hides the following "folklore":
Coq + Impredicative Set + Weak Excluded-middle -> False
This folklore is a variation of the following facts:
proof irrelevance + large elimination -> false
And Coq + Impredicative Set is canonical, soundness, strong normalization, So it is consistent.
Coq + Impredicative Set is the old version of Coq. I think this at least shows that the defense of the LEM based on double negative translation is not that convincing.
If you want to get information about the solutions, you can get it from here https://github.com/FStarLang/FStar/issues/360
On the other hand, you may be interested in the story of how Coq-HoTT+UA went against LEM∞...
=====================================================
Ok, let's have some solutions.
use command-line flag -impredicative-set, or the install old version(<8.0) of coq.
excluded-middle -> proof-irrelevance
proof-irrelevance -> False
Or you can work with standard coq + coq-hott.
install coq-hott
Univalence + Global Excluded-middle (LEM∞) -> False
It is not recommended that you directly click on the code in question without grasping the specific concept.
I skipped a lot about meta-theoretic implementations, such as Univalence not being computable in Coq-HoTT but only in Agda-CuTT, such as the consistency proof for Coq+Impredicative Set/Coq-HoTT.
However, metatheoretical considerations are important. If we just want to get an Anti-LEM model and don't care about metatheory, then we can use "Boolean-valued forcing" in coq to wreak havoc on things that only LEM can introduce, such as "every function about real set is continuous", Dedekind infinite...
But this answer ends there.
I've been stuck on a particular predicate logic problem (using Coq) for a long time. I've solved 30-40 predicate logic problems already but with this one I just can't figure it out.
This is the problem:
~all x, (P(x) / (Q(x) -> T(x))) -> ~all x, T(x).
Or in box form
Can anyone send me in the right direction? Thanks!
Edit:
This is the coq code for the problem:
Variables P Q T : D -> Prop.
Theorem pred_015 : ~all x, (P(x) \/ (Q(x) -> T(x))) -> ~all x, T(x).
Proof.
imp_i H.
Qed.
It looks to me like your are using some very old version of Coq.
After adding a missing declaration for D, and replacing all with forall, we get a statement that does not look provable.
However, if I had a set of parentheses, I get a goal that is now provable. See the following code:
Variable D : Set.
Variables P Q T : D -> Prop.
Theorem pred_015 : (~forall x, (P(x) \/ (Q(x) -> T(x)))) -> ~forall x, T(x).
Proof.
Now, I don't think I should be giving the solution to this here, in public, but it's quite easy if you remember that ~H is defined as H -> False.