So I'm trying to define a function apply_C :: "('a multiset ⇒ 'a option) ⇒ 'a multiset ⇒ 'a multiset"
It takes in a function C that may convert an 'a multiset into a single element of type 'a. Here we assume that each element in the domain of C is pairwise mutually exclusive and not the empty multiset (I already have another function that checks these things). apply will also take another multiset inp. What I'd like the function to do is check if there is at least one element in the domain of C that is completely contained in inp. If this is the case, then perform a set difference inp - s where s is the element in the domain of C and add the element the (C s) into this resulting multiset. Afterwards, keep running the function until there are no more elements in the domain of C that are completely contained in the given inp multiset.
What I tried was the following:
fun apply_C :: "('a multiset ⇒ 'a option) ⇒ 'a multiset ⇒ 'a multiset" where
"apply_C C inp = (if ∃s ∈ (domain C). s ⊆# inp then apply_C C (add_mset (the (C s)) (inp - s)) else inp)"
However, I get this error:
Variable "s" occurs on right hand side only:
⋀C inp s.
apply_C C inp =
(if ∃s∈domain C. s ⊆# inp
then apply_C C
(add_mset (the (C s)) (inp - s))
else inp)
I have been thinking about this problem for days now, and I haven't been able to find a way to implement this functionality in Isabelle. Could I please have some help?
After thinking more about it, I don't believe there is a simple solutions for that Isabelle.
Do you need that?
I have not said why you want that. Maybe you can reduce your assumptions? Do you really need a function to calculate the result?
How to express the definition?
I would use an inductive predicate that express one step of rewriting and prove that the solution is unique. Something along:
context
fixes C :: ‹'a multiset ⇒ 'a option›
begin
inductive apply_CI where
‹apply_CI (M + M') (add_mset (the (C M)) M')›
if ‹M ∈ dom C›
context
assumes
distinct: ‹⋀a b. a ∈ dom C ⟹ b ∈ dom C ⟹ a ≠ b ⟹ a ∩# b = {#}› and
strictly_smaller: ‹⋀a b. a ∈ dom C ⟹ size a > 1›
begin
lemma apply_CI_determ:
assumes
‹apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M⇩1› and
‹apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M⇩2› and
‹⋀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M⇩1 M⇩3›
‹⋀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M⇩2 M⇩3›
shows ‹M⇩1 = M⇩2›
sorry
lemma apply_CI_smaller:
‹apply_CI M M' ⟹ size M' ≤ size M›
apply (induction rule: apply_CI.induct)
subgoal for M M'
using strictly_smaller[of M]
by auto
done
lemma wf_apply_CI:
‹wf {(x, y). apply_CI y x}›
(*trivial but very annoying because not enough useful lemmas on wf*)
sorry
end
end
I have no clue how to prove apply_CI_determ (no idea if the conditions I wrote down are sufficient or not), but I did spend much thinking about it.
After that you can define your definitions with:
definition apply_C where
‹apply_C M = (SOME M'. apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M' ∧ (∀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M' M⇩3))›
and prove the property in your definition.
How to execute it
I don't see how to write an executable function on multisets directly. The problem you face is that one step of apply_C is nondeterministic.
If you can use lists instead of multisets, you get an order on the elements for free and you can use subseqs that gives you all possible subsets. Rewrite using the first element in subseqs that is in the domain of C. Iterate as long as there is any possible rewriting.
Link that to the inductive predicate to prove termination and that it calculates the right thing.
Remark that in general you cannot extract a list out of a multiset, but it is possible to do so in some cases (e.g., if you have a linorder over 'a).
This Haskell solution has been described as recursive, but not quite efficient according to a few claims, so I have tried to rewrite it with that in mind. The problem is described in a course that is available online and whose homework was the Tower of Hanoi.
A new solution of mine:
type Peg = String
type Move = (Peg, Peg)
hanoi :: Integer -> Peg -> Peg -> Peg -> [Move]
hanoi n a b c = hanoiToList n a b c []
where
hanoiToList 0 _ _ _ l = l
-- hanoiToList 1 a b _ l = (a, b) : l
hanoiToList n a b c l = hanoiToList (n-1) a c b ((a, b) : hanoiToList (n-1) c b a l)
Let me explain the reasoning: if the function is going to end up as a list, then you had better compare it to another that takes an empty one as an argument, otherwise append it after it has been solved, which I believe to be the cause of inefficiency, thus leading to the same function being called in its place. The result has been checked and it's correct, but I wanted to know whether this is more efficient or simply redundant, considering the previous solution that I linked to.
EDIT: I commented a line that was unnecessary.
Yep, that gets rid of the inefficient copying of (:) constructors. It's a slightly non-idiomatic way to write it, but the more idiomatic way should have identical performance when compiled with optimizations.
hanoi n a b c = hanoiToList n a b c []
where
hanoiToList 0 _ _ _ = id
hanoiToList n a b c = hanoiToList (n-1) a c b . ((a, b) :) . hanoiToList (n-1) c b a
That's the slightly more idiomatic approach. It's all about emphasizing the viewpoint that you're building up a transformation of a value. In practice it's identical as long as function composition is being inlined and simplified as expected.
Can a language which can be recognised by a TM but cannot be decided by a TM?
example of a language which can be recognised by a TM but cannot be
decided by a TM
Would the answer be:
TM={<M,w> M is a TM that accepts input string w}
Could I be wrong?
What is the difference between decidability and recognisability?
In short, Any string that a recognized by a TM is called TM recognizable whereas any strings that is acceptable by a TM is called TM decidable.
For your first question - is there a language that is recognizable by a TM but not decidable by a TM? - the answer is "yes," and the language you've given, which is the universal language, is an example of such a language.
For your second question - what's the difference between decidability and recognizability? - the answer you've given is on the right track, but as written as incorrect. Remember that decidability and recognizability are properites of languages, not strings. There's no such thing as a "decidable string" or a "recognizable string."
A language L is decidable if there's a TM M with the following properties: for every string w ∈ L, M accepts w, and for every string w ∉ L, M rejects w. In other words, if you don't know whether w is in L or not, you can run M on w, wait for it to give you an answer, and discover the answer.
A language L is recognizable if there's a TM M with the following properties: for every string w ∈ L, M accepts w, and for every string w ∉ L, M does not accept w (that is, either M loops on w, or M rejects w). In other words, if you are sure that w ∈ L and want to confirm this, you can run M on w, watch it accept w, and be certain that your answer was right, but if you didn't know in advance whether w is in L, you might not be able to use M to find out the answer, since M might loop on w.
Consider the basic system of simple types usually known as TAλ. One can prove that (as a consequence of the so called Subject Reduction Property and the fact that any typable term is strongly β-normalising)
If τ has an inhabitant, then it has one in β-normal form.
It follows that given an inhabitation problem Γ ⊢ X : τ we can effectively construct an algorithm that nondeterministically guesses step by step the shape of a normal solution: either (i) X is xY_1...Y_n or (ii) X is λz.Y:
(i) If for some n ≥ 0 there a judgment x : σ_1 → ... → σ_n → τ in Γ, then nondeterministically select it, set X = xY_1...Y_n and (only if n > 0) consider parallel problems
Γ ⊢ Y_1 : σ_1,...,Γ ⊢ Y_n : σ_n
(ii) If τ is τ_1 → τ_2, then for a fresh variable z, set X = λz.Y and consider the problem
Γ, z : τ_1 ⊢ Y : τ_2.
Furthermore, since all types in the constraints at each step of the algorithm are proper subtypes of the original input, the number of steps of the algorithm is at most polynomial in the size of τ. Therefore, the algorithm above is a decision procedure for the inhabitation problem.
My question is the following: what's wrong in the above reasoning? I've been searching all day for a decision procedure for the inhabitation problem for simple types, but all the proofs I can find are rather long and use complicated machinery (e.g. long normal forms, Curry-Howard isomorphism, etc...). There must be something that I don't see.
Sorry, I'm not used to unicode and SO doesn't support LaTeX. I also asked the same question on MO https://mathoverflow.net/questions/140045/is-there-an-easy-decision-algorithm-for-the-inhabitation-problem-for-simple-type, but the lambda calculus group doesn't seem too active there.
I'm carrying out some experiments in theorem proving with combinator logic, which is looking promising, but there's one stumbling block: it has been pointed out that in combinator logic it is true that e.g. I = SKK but this is not a theorem, it has to be added as an axiom. Does anyone know of a complete list of the axioms that need to be added?
Edit: You can of course prove by hand that I = SKK, but unless I'm missing something, it's not a theorem within the system of combinator logic with equality. That having been said, you can just macro expand I to SKK... but I'm still missing something important. Taking the set of clauses p(X) and ~p(X), which easily resolve to a contradiction in ordinary first-order logic, and converting them to SK, performing substitution and evaluating all calls of S and K, my program generates the following (where I am using ' for Unlambda's backtick):
''eq ''s ''s ''s 'k s ''s ''s 'k s ''s 'k k 'k eq ''s ''s 'k s 'k k 'k k ''s 'k k 'k false 'k true 'k true
It looks like maybe what I need is an appropriate set of rules for handling the partial calls 'k and ''s, I'm just not seeing what those rules should be, and all the literature I can find in this area was written for a target audience of mathematicians not programmers. I suspect the answer is probably quite simple once you understand it.
Some textbooks define I as mere alias for ((S K) K). In this case they are identical (as terms) per definitionem. To prove their equality (as functions), we need only to prove that equality is reflexive, which can be achieved by a reflexivity axiom scheme:
Proposition ``E = E'' is deducible (Reflexivity axiom scheme, instantiated for each possible terms denoted here by metavariable E)
Thus, I suppose in the followings, that Your questions investigates another approach: when combinator I is not defined as a mere alias for compound term ((S K) K), but introduced as a standalone basic combinator constant on its own, whose operational semantics is declared explicitly by axiom scheme
``(I E) = E'' is deducible (I-axiom scheme)
I suppose Your question asks
whether we can deduce formally (remaining inside the system), that such a standalone-defined I behaves exactly as ((S K) K), when used as functions in reductions?
I think we can, but we must resort to stronger tools. I conjecture that the usual axiom schemes are not enough, we have to declare also the extensionality property (equality of functions), that's the main point. If we want to formalize extensionality as an axiom, we have to augment our object language with free variables.
I think, we have to adopt such an approach for building combinatory logic, that we have to allow also the use of variables in the object langauge. Oof course, I mean "just" free valuables. Using bound variables would be cheating, we have to remain inside the realm of combinatory logic. Using free varaibles is not cheating, it's a honest tool. Thus, we can do the formal proof You required.
Besides the straightforward equality axioms and rules of inference (transitivity, reflexivity, symmetry, Leibniz rules), we must add an extensionality rule of inference for equality. Here is the point where free variables matter.
In Csörnyei 2007: 157-158, I have found the following approach. I think this way the proof can be done.
Some remarks:
Most of the axioms are in fact axiom schemes, consisting of infinitely many axiom instances. The instances must be instantiated for for every possible E, F, G terms. Here, I use italics for metavariables.
The superficial infinite nature of axiom schemes won't raise computability problems, because they can be tackled in a finite time: our axiom system is recursive. It means that a clever parser can decide in a finite time (moreover, very effectively), whether a given proposition is an instance of an axiom scheme, or not. Thus, the usage of axiom schemes does not raise neither theoretical nor practical problems.
Now let us seem our framework:
Language
ALPHABET
Constants: The following three are called constants: K, S, I.
I added the constant I only because Your question presupposes that we have not defined the combinator I as an mere alias/macro for compound term S K K, but it is a standalone constant on its own.
I shall denote constants by boldface roman capitals.
Sign of application: A sign # of ``application'' is enough (prefix notation with arity 2). As syntactic sugar, I use here parantheses instead of the explicit application sign: I shall use the explicit both opening ( and closing ) signs.
Variables: Although combinator logic does not make use of bound variables, scope etc, but we can introduce free variables. I suspect, they are not only syntactic sugar, they can strengthen the deduction system, too. I conjecture, that Your question will require their usage. Any enumerable infinite set (disjoint of the constants and parenthesis signs) will serve as the alphabet of variables, I will denote them here with unformatted roman lowercase letters x, y, z...
TERMS
Terms are defined inductively:
Any constant is a term
Any variable is a term
If E is a term, and F is a term too, then also (E F) is a term
I sometimes use practical conventions as syntactic sugar, e.g. write
E F G H
instead of
(((E F) G) H).
Deduction
Conversion axiom schemes:
``K E F = E'' is deducible (K-axiom scheme)
``S F G H = F H (G H)'' is deducible (S-axiom scheme)
``I E = E'' is deducible (I-axiom scheme)
I added the third conversion axiom (I rule) only because Your question presupposes that we have not defined the combinator I as an alias/macro for S K K.
Equality axiom schemes and rules of inference
``E = E'' is deducible (Reflexivity axiom)
If "E = F" is deducible, then "F = E" is also deducible (Symmetry rule of inference)
If "E = F" is deducible, and "F = G" is deducible too, then also "E = G" is reducible (Transitivity rule)
If "E = F" is deducible, then "E G = F G" is also deducible (Leibniz rule I)
If "E = F" is deducible, then "G E = G F" is also deducible (Leibniz rule II)
Question
Now let us investigate Your question. I conjecture that the deduction system defined so far is not strong enough to prove Your question.
Is proposition "I = S K K" deducible?
The problem is, that we have to prove the equivalence of functions. We regard two functions equivalent if they behave the same way. Functions act so that they are applied to arguments. We should prove that both functions act the same way if applied to each possible arguments. Again, the problem with infinity! I suspect, axioms schemes can't help us here. Something like
If E F = G F is deducible, then also E = G is deducible
would fail to do the job: we can see that this does not yield what we want. Using it, we can prove that
``I E = S K K E'' is deducible
for each E term instance, but these results are only separated instances of, and cannot be used as a whole for further deductions. We have only concrete results (infinitely many), not being able to summarize them:
it holds for E := K
holds for E := S
it holds for E := K K
.
.
.
...
we cannot summarize these fragmented result instances into a single great result, stating extensionality! We cannot pour these low-value fragment into the funnel a rule of inference that would melt them together into a single more valuable result.
We have to augment the power of our deduction system. We have to find a formal tool that can grasps the problem. Your questions leads to extensionality, and I think, declaring extensionality needs that we can pose propositions that hold for *****arbitrary***** instances. That's why I think we must allow free variables inside our object language. I conjecture that the following additional rule of inference will do the work:
If variable x is not part of terms neither E nor F, and statement (E x) = (F x) is deducible, then E = F is also deducible (Extensionality rule of inference)
The hard thing in this axiom, easily leading to confusion: x is an object variables, fully emancipated and respected parts of our object language, while E and G are metavariables, not parts of the object language, but used only for a concise notation of axiom schemes.
(Remark: More precisely, the extensionality rule of inference should be formalized in a more careful way, introducing a metavariable x over all possible object variables x, y, z..., and also another kind of metavariable E over all possible term instances. But this distinction among the two kinds of metavariables plus the object variables is not so didactic here, it does not affect Your question too much.)
Proof
Let us prove now the proposition that ``I = S K K''.
Steps for left-hand side:
proposition ``I x = x'' is an instance of I-axiom scheme with instatiation [E := x]
Steps for right-hand side:
Proposition "S K K x = K x (K x)" is an instance of S-axiom scheme with instantiations [E := K, F := K, G := x], thus it is deducible
Proposition "K x (K x) = x" is an instance of K-axiom scheme with instantiations [E := x, F := K x], thus it is deducible
Transitivity of equality:
Statement "S K K x = K x (K x)" matches the first premise of transitivity rule of inference, and statement "K x (K x) = x" matches the second premise of this rule of inference. The instantiations are [E := S K K x, F := K x (K x), G = x]. Thus the conclusion holds too: E = G. Rewriting the conclusion with the same instantiations, we get statement "S K K x = x", thus, this is deducible.
Symmetry of equality:
Using "S K K x = x", we can infer "x = S K K x"
Transitivity of equality:
Using "I x = x" and "x = S K K x", we can infer "I x = S K K x"
Now we have paved the way for the crucial point:
Proposition "I x = S K K x" matches with the first premise of Extension rule of inference: (E x) = (F x), with instantiations [E := I, F := S K K]. Thus the conclusion must also hold, that is, "E = F" with the same instantiations ([E := I, F := S K K]), yielding proposition "I = S K K", quod erat demonstrandum.
Csörnyei, Zoltán (2007): Lambda-kalkulus. A funkcionális programozás alapjai. Budapest: Typotex. ISBN-978-963-9664-46-3.
You don't need to define I as an axiom. Start with the following:
I.x = x
K.x y = x
S.x y z = x z (y z)
Since SKanything = anything, then SKanything is an identity function, just like I.
So, I = SKK and I = SKS. No need to define I as an axiom, you can define it as syntax sugar which aliases SKK.
The definitions of S and K are you only axioms.
The usual axioms are complete for beta equality, but do not give eta equality. Curry found a set of about thirty axioms to the usual ones to get completeness for beta-eta equality. They're listed in Hindley & Seldin's Introduction to combinators and lambda-calculus.
Roger Hindley, Curry's Last Problem, lists some additional desiderata we might want from mappings between the lambda calculus and notes that we don't have mappings that satisfy all of them. You likely won't care much about all of the criteria.