/- Copyright (c) 2015 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Released under Apache 2.0 license as described in the file LICENSE. Authors: Leonardo de Moura, Jeremy Avigad -/ prelude import init.subtype init.funext namespace classical open subtype /- the axiom -/ -- In the presence of classical logic, we could prove this from a weaker statement: -- axiom indefinite_description {A : Type} {P : A->Prop} (H : ∃x, P x) : {x : A, P x} axiom strong_indefinite_description {A : Type} (P : A → Prop) (H : nonempty A) : { x | (∃y : A, P y) → P x} theorem exists_true_of_nonempty {A : Type} (H : nonempty A) : ∃x : A, true := nonempty.elim H (take x, exists.intro x trivial) noncomputable definition inhabited_of_nonempty {A : Type} (H : nonempty A) : inhabited A := let u : {x | (∃y : A, true) → true} := strong_indefinite_description (λa, true) H in inhabited.mk (elt_of u) noncomputable definition inhabited_of_exists {A : Type} {P : A → Prop} (H : ∃x, P x) : inhabited A := inhabited_of_nonempty (obtain w Hw, from H, nonempty.intro w) /- the Hilbert epsilon function -/ noncomputable definition epsilon {A : Type} [H : nonempty A] (P : A → Prop) : A := let u : {x | (∃y, P y) → P x} := strong_indefinite_description P H in elt_of u theorem epsilon_spec_aux {A : Type} (H : nonempty A) (P : A → Prop) (Hex : ∃y, P y) : P (@epsilon A H P) := let u : {x | (∃y, P y) → P x} := strong_indefinite_description P H in have aux : (∃y, P y) → P (elt_of (strong_indefinite_description P H)), from has_property u, aux Hex theorem epsilon_spec {A : Type} {P : A → Prop} (Hex : ∃y, P y) : P (@epsilon A (nonempty_of_exists Hex) P) := epsilon_spec_aux (nonempty_of_exists Hex) P Hex theorem epsilon_singleton {A : Type} (a : A) : @epsilon A (nonempty.intro a) (λx, x = a) = a := epsilon_spec (exists.intro a (eq.refl a)) noncomputable definition some {A : Type} {P : A → Prop} (H : ∃x, P x) : A := @epsilon A (nonempty_of_exists H) P theorem some_spec {A : Type} {P : A → Prop} (H : ∃x, P x) : P (some H) := epsilon_spec H /- the axiom of choice -/ theorem axiom_of_choice {A : Type} {B : A → Type} {R : Πx, B x → Prop} (H : ∀x, ∃y, R x y) : ∃f, ∀x, R x (f x) := have H : ∀x, R x (some (H x)), from take x, some_spec (H x), exists.intro _ H theorem skolem {A : Type} {B : A → Type} {P : Πx, B x → Prop} : (∀x, ∃y, P x y) ↔ ∃f, (∀x, P x (f x)) := iff.intro (assume H : (∀x, ∃y, P x y), axiom_of_choice H) (assume H : (∃f, (∀x, P x (f x))), take x, obtain (fw : ∀x, B x) (Hw : ∀x, P x (fw x)), from H, exists.intro (fw x) (Hw x)) /- Prove excluded middle using Hilbert's choice The proof follows Diaconescu proof that shows that the axiom of choice implies the excluded middle. -/ section diaconescu open eq.ops parameter p : Prop private definition U (x : Prop) : Prop := x = true ∨ p private definition V (x : Prop) : Prop := x = false ∨ p private noncomputable definition u := epsilon U private noncomputable definition v := epsilon V private lemma u_def : U u := epsilon_spec (exists.intro true (or.inl rfl)) private lemma v_def : V v := epsilon_spec (exists.intro false (or.inl rfl)) private lemma not_uv_or_p : ¬(u = v) ∨ p := or.elim u_def (assume Hut : u = true, or.elim v_def (assume Hvf : v = false, have Hne : ¬(u = v), from Hvf⁻¹ ▸ Hut⁻¹ ▸ true_ne_false, or.inl Hne) (assume Hp : p, or.inr Hp)) (assume Hp : p, or.inr Hp) private lemma p_implies_uv : p → u = v := assume Hp : p, have Hpred : U = V, from funext (take x : Prop, have Hl : (x = true ∨ p) → (x = false ∨ p), from assume A, or.inr Hp, have Hr : (x = false ∨ p) → (x = true ∨ p), from assume A, or.inr Hp, show (x = true ∨ p) = (x = false ∨ p), from propext (iff.intro Hl Hr)), have H' : epsilon U = epsilon V, from Hpred ▸ rfl, show u = v, from H' theorem em : p ∨ ¬p := have H : ¬(u = v) → ¬p, from mt p_implies_uv, or.elim not_uv_or_p (assume Hne : ¬(u = v), or.inr (H Hne)) (assume Hp : p, or.inl Hp) end diaconescu theorem prop_complete (a : Prop) : a = true ∨ a = false := or.elim (em a) (λ t, or.inl (propext (iff.intro (λ h, trivial) (λ h, t)))) (λ f, or.inr (propext (iff.intro (λ h, absurd h f) (λ h, false.elim h)))) definition eq_true_or_eq_false := prop_complete section aux open eq.ops theorem cases_true_false (P : Prop → Prop) (H1 : P true) (H2 : P false) (a : Prop) : P a := or.elim (prop_complete a) (assume Ht : a = true, Ht⁻¹ ▸ H1) (assume Hf : a = false, Hf⁻¹ ▸ H2) theorem cases_on (a : Prop) {P : Prop → Prop} (H1 : P true) (H2 : P false) : P a := cases_true_false P H1 H2 a -- this supercedes by_cases in decidable definition by_cases {p q : Prop} (Hpq : p → q) (Hnpq : ¬p → q) : q := or.elim (em p) (assume Hp, Hpq Hp) (assume Hnp, Hnpq Hnp) -- this supercedes by_contradiction in decidable theorem by_contradiction {p : Prop} (H : ¬p → false) : p := by_cases (assume H1 : p, H1) (assume H1 : ¬p, false.rec _ (H H1)) theorem eq_false_or_eq_true (a : Prop) : a = false ∨ a = true := cases_true_false (λ x, x = false ∨ x = true) (or.inr rfl) (or.inl rfl) a theorem eq.of_iff {a b : Prop} (H : a ↔ b) : a = b := iff.elim (assume H1 H2, propext (iff.intro H1 H2)) H theorem iff_eq_eq {a b : Prop} : (a ↔ b) = (a = b) := propext (iff.intro (assume H, eq.of_iff H) (assume H, iff.of_eq H)) lemma eq_false {a : Prop} : (a = false) = (¬ a) := begin rewrite ((@iff_eq_eq a false)⁻¹), rewrite iff_false end lemma eq_true {a : Prop} : (a = true) = a := begin rewrite ((@iff_eq_eq a true)⁻¹), rewrite iff_true end end aux /- All propositions are decidable -/ open decidable noncomputable definition decidable_inhabited [instance] [priority 0] (a : Prop) : inhabited (decidable a) := inhabited_of_nonempty (or.elim (em a) (assume Ha, nonempty.intro (inl Ha)) (assume Hna, nonempty.intro (inr Hna))) noncomputable definition prop_decidable [instance] [priority 0] (a : Prop) : decidable a := arbitrary (decidable a) noncomputable definition type_decidable (A : Type) : sum A (A → false) := match prop_decidable (nonempty A) with | inl Hp := sum.inl (inhabited.value (inhabited_of_nonempty Hp)) | inr Hn := sum.inr (λ a, absurd (nonempty.intro a) Hn) end end classical