michael/lean2
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
lean2/tests/lean/run/ftree_brec.lean

114 lines
4.8 KiB
Text
Raw Normal View History

test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
import data.unit data.prod
inductive ftree (A : Type) (B : Type) : Type :=
leafa : ftree A B,
node : (A → B → ftree A B) → (B → ftree A B) → ftree A B
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
set_option pp.universes true
check @ftree
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
namespace ftree
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
namespace manual
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
definition below.{l l₁ l₂} {A : Type.{l₁}} {B : Type.{l₂}} (C : ftree A B → Type.{l+1}) (t : ftree A B)
: Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)} :=
@rec.{(max l₁ l₂ (l+1))+1 l₁ l₂}
A
B
(λ t : ftree A B, Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)})
unit.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)}
(λ (f₁ : A → B → ftree A B)
(f₂ : B → ftree A B)
(r₁ : Π (a : A) (b : B), Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)})
(r₂ : Π (b : B), Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)}),
let fc₁ : Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)} := Π (a : A) (b : B), C (f₁ a b) in
let fc₂ : Type.{max l₂ l+1} := Π (b : B), C (f₂ b) in
let fr₁ : Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)} := Π (a : A) (b : B), r₁ a b in
let fr₂ : Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)} := Π (b : B), r₂ b in
let p₁ : Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)} := prod.{(max l₁ l₂ (l+1)) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} fc₁ fr₁ in
let p₂ : Type.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)} := prod.{(max l₂ (l+1)) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} fc₂ fr₂ in
prod.{(max l₁ l₂ (l+1)) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} p₁ p₂)
t
definition pbelow.{l₁ l₂} {A : Type.{l₁}} {B : Type.{l₂}} (C : ftree A B → Prop) (t : ftree A B)
: Prop :=
@rec.{1 l₁ l₂}
A
B
(λ t : ftree A B, Prop)
true
(λ (f₁ : A → B → ftree A B)
(f₂ : B → ftree A B)
(r₁ : Π (a : A) (b : B), Prop)
(r₂ : Π (b : B), Prop),
let fc₁ : Prop := ∀ (a : A) (b : B), C (f₁ a b) in
let fc₂ : Prop := ∀ (b : B), C (f₂ b) in
let fr₁ : Prop := ∀ (a : A) (b : B), r₁ a b in
let fr₂ : Prop := ∀ (b : B), r₂ b in
let p₁ : Prop := fc₁ ∧ fr₁ in
let p₂ : Prop := fc₂ ∧ fr₂ in
p₁ ∧ p₂)
t
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
end manual
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
definition brec_on.{l l₁ l₂} {A : Type.{l₁}} {B : Type.{l₂}} {C : ftree A B → Type.{l+1}}
(t : ftree A B)
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
(F : Π (t : ftree A B), @below A B C t → C t)
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
: C t :=
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
have gen : prod.{(l+1) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} (C t) (@below A B C t), from
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
@rec.{(max l₁ l₂ (l+1)) l₁ l₂}
A
B
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
(λ t : ftree A B, prod.{(l+1) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} (C t) (@below A B C t))
(have b : @below A B C (leafa A B), from
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
unit.star.{max l₁ l₂ (l+1)},
have c : C (leafa A B), from
F (leafa A B) b,
prod.mk.{(l+1) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} c b)
(λ (f₁ : A → B → ftree A B)
(f₂ : B → ftree A B)
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
(r₁ : Π (a : A) (b : B), prod.{(l+1) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} (C (f₁ a b)) (@below A B C (f₁ a b)))
(r₂ : Π (b : B), prod.{(l+1) (max l₁ l₂ (l+1))} (C (f₂ b)) (@below A B C (f₂ b))),
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
let fc₁ : Π (a : A) (b : B), C (f₁ a b) := λ (a : A) (b : B), prod.pr1 (r₁ a b) in
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
let fr₁ : Π (a : A) (b : B), @below A B C (f₁ a b) := λ (a : A) (b : B), prod.pr2 (r₁ a b) in
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
let fc₂ : Π (b : B), C (f₂ b) := λ (b : B), prod.pr1 (r₂ b) in
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
let fr₂ : Π (b : B), @below A B C (f₂ b) := λ (b : B), prod.pr2 (r₂ b) in
have b : @below A B C (node f₁ f₂), from
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
prod.mk (prod.mk fc₁ fr₁) (prod.mk fc₂ fr₂),
have c : C (node f₁ f₂), from
F (node f₁ f₂) b,
prod.mk c b)
t,
prod.pr1 gen
definition binduction_on.{l₁ l₂} {A : Type.{l₁}} {B : Type.{l₂}} {C : ftree A B → Prop}
(t : ftree A B)
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
(F : Π (t : ftree A B), @ibelow A B C t → C t)
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
: C t :=
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
have gen : C t ∧ @ibelow A B C t, from
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
@rec.{0 l₁ l₂}
A
B
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
(λ t : ftree A B, C t ∧ @ibelow A B C t)
(have b : @ibelow A B C (leafa A B), from
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
true.intro,
have c : C (leafa A B), from
F (leafa A B) b,
and.intro c b)
(λ (f₁ : A → B → ftree A B)
(f₂ : B → ftree A B)
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
(r₁ : ∀ (a : A) (b : B), C (f₁ a b) ∧ @ibelow A B C (f₁ a b))
(r₂ : ∀ (b : B), C (f₂ b) ∧ @ibelow A B C (f₂ b)),
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
let fc₁ : ∀ (a : A) (b : B), C (f₁ a b) := λ (a : A) (b : B), and.elim_left (r₁ a b) in
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
let fr₁ : ∀ (a : A) (b : B), @ibelow A B C (f₁ a b) := λ (a : A) (b : B), and.elim_right (r₁ a b) in
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
let fc₂ : ∀ (b : B), C (f₂ b) := λ (b : B), and.elim_left (r₂ b) in
feat(library/definitional): define ibelow and below These are helper definitions for brec_on and binduction_on
2014-11-13 00:38:46 +00:00
let fr₂ : ∀ (b : B), @ibelow A B C (f₂ b) := λ (b : B), and.elim_right (r₂ b) in
have b : @ibelow A B C (node f₁ f₂), from
test(tests/lean/run): define brec_on and binduction_on for a reflexive type We say an inductive type T is reflexive if it contains at least one constructor that takes as an argument a function returning T. For reflexive types it doesn't seen to be possible to define a single brec_on that can eliminate to Type.{>=1} and Prop. The universe level expressions get too complicated. Even if we extend the universe constraint solver in the kernel, the additional complexity might be a problem. We workaround this issue by defining two versions of brec_on: - One (brec_on) that eliminates to Type.{>=1}, and - binduction_on that eliminates to Prop. For non-reflexive types, we can combine both of them.
2014-11-12 18:46:22 +00:00
and.intro (and.intro fc₁ fr₁) (and.intro fc₂ fr₂),
have c : C (node f₁ f₂), from
F (node f₁ f₂) b,
and.intro c b)
t,
and.elim_left gen
end ftree
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink