(* Title: ZF/Induct/PropLog.thy ID: $Id: PropLog.thy,v 1.4 2005/06/17 14:15:11 haftmann Exp $ Author: Tobias Nipkow & Lawrence C Paulson Copyright 1993 University of Cambridge *) header {* Meta-theory of propositional logic *} theory PropLog imports Main begin text {* Datatype definition of propositional logic formulae and inductive definition of the propositional tautologies. Inductive definition of propositional logic. Soundness and completeness w.r.t.\ truth-tables. Prove: If @{text "H |= p"} then @{text "G |= p"} where @{text "G \ Fin(H)"} *} subsection {* The datatype of propositions *} consts propn :: i datatype propn = Fls | Var ("n \ nat") ("#_" [100] 100) | Imp ("p \ propn", "q \ propn") (infixr "=>" 90) subsection {* The proof system *} consts thms :: "i => i" syntax "_thms" :: "[i,i] => o" (infixl "|-" 50) translations "H |- p" == "p \ thms(H)" inductive domains "thms(H)" \ "propn" intros H: "[| p \ H; p \ propn |] ==> H |- p" K: "[| p \ propn; q \ propn |] ==> H |- p=>q=>p" S: "[| p \ propn; q \ propn; r \ propn |] ==> H |- (p=>q=>r) => (p=>q) => p=>r" DN: "p \ propn ==> H |- ((p=>Fls) => Fls) => p" MP: "[| H |- p=>q; H |- p; p \ propn; q \ propn |] ==> H |- q" type_intros "propn.intros" declare propn.intros [simp] subsection {* The semantics *} subsubsection {* Semantics of propositional logic. *} consts is_true_fun :: "[i,i] => i" primrec "is_true_fun(Fls, t) = 0" "is_true_fun(Var(v), t) = (if v \ t then 1 else 0)" "is_true_fun(p=>q, t) = (if is_true_fun(p,t) = 1 then is_true_fun(q,t) else 1)" constdefs is_true :: "[i,i] => o" "is_true(p,t) == is_true_fun(p,t) = 1" -- {* this definition is required since predicates can't be recursive *} lemma is_true_Fls [simp]: "is_true(Fls,t) <-> False" by (simp add: is_true_def) lemma is_true_Var [simp]: "is_true(#v,t) <-> v \ t" by (simp add: is_true_def) lemma is_true_Imp [simp]: "is_true(p=>q,t) <-> (is_true(p,t)-->is_true(q,t))" by (simp add: is_true_def) subsubsection {* Logical consequence *} text {* For every valuation, if all elements of @{text H} are true then so is @{text p}. *} constdefs logcon :: "[i,i] => o" (infixl "|=" 50) "H |= p == \t. (\q \ H. is_true(q,t)) --> is_true(p,t)" text {* A finite set of hypotheses from @{text t} and the @{text Var}s in @{text p}. *} consts hyps :: "[i,i] => i" primrec "hyps(Fls, t) = 0" "hyps(Var(v), t) = (if v \ t then {#v} else {#v=>Fls})" "hyps(p=>q, t) = hyps(p,t) \ hyps(q,t)" subsection {* Proof theory of propositional logic *} lemma thms_mono: "G \ H ==> thms(G) \ thms(H)" apply (unfold thms.defs) apply (rule lfp_mono) apply (rule thms.bnd_mono)+ apply (assumption | rule univ_mono basic_monos)+ done lemmas thms_in_pl = thms.dom_subset [THEN subsetD] inductive_cases ImpE: "p=>q \ propn" lemma thms_MP: "[| H |- p=>q; H |- p |] ==> H |- q" -- {* Stronger Modus Ponens rule: no typechecking! *} apply (rule thms.MP) apply (erule asm_rl thms_in_pl thms_in_pl [THEN ImpE])+ done lemma thms_I: "p \ propn ==> H |- p=>p" -- {*Rule is called @{text I} for Identity Combinator, not for Introduction. *} apply (rule thms.S [THEN thms_MP, THEN thms_MP]) apply (rule_tac [5] thms.K) apply (rule_tac [4] thms.K) apply simp_all done subsubsection {* Weakening, left and right *} lemma weaken_left: "[| G \ H; G|-p |] ==> H|-p" -- {* Order of premises is convenient with @{text THEN} *} by (erule thms_mono [THEN subsetD]) lemma weaken_left_cons: "H |- p ==> cons(a,H) |- p" by (erule subset_consI [THEN weaken_left]) lemmas weaken_left_Un1 = Un_upper1 [THEN weaken_left] lemmas weaken_left_Un2 = Un_upper2 [THEN weaken_left] lemma weaken_right: "[| H |- q; p \ propn |] ==> H |- p=>q" by (simp_all add: thms.K [THEN thms_MP] thms_in_pl) subsubsection {* The deduction theorem *} theorem deduction: "[| cons(p,H) |- q; p \ propn |] ==> H |- p=>q" apply (erule thms.induct) apply (blast intro: thms_I thms.H [THEN weaken_right]) apply (blast intro: thms.K [THEN weaken_right]) apply (blast intro: thms.S [THEN weaken_right]) apply (blast intro: thms.DN [THEN weaken_right]) apply (blast intro: thms.S [THEN thms_MP [THEN thms_MP]]) done subsubsection {* The cut rule *} lemma cut: "[| H|-p; cons(p,H) |- q |] ==> H |- q" apply (rule deduction [THEN thms_MP]) apply (simp_all add: thms_in_pl) done lemma thms_FlsE: "[| H |- Fls; p \ propn |] ==> H |- p" apply (rule thms.DN [THEN thms_MP]) apply (rule_tac [2] weaken_right) apply (simp_all add: propn.intros) done lemma thms_notE: "[| H |- p=>Fls; H |- p; q \ propn |] ==> H |- q" by (erule thms_MP [THEN thms_FlsE]) subsubsection {* Soundness of the rules wrt truth-table semantics *} theorem soundness: "H |- p ==> H |= p" apply (unfold logcon_def) apply (erule thms.induct) apply auto done subsection {* Completeness *} subsubsection {* Towards the completeness proof *} lemma Fls_Imp: "[| H |- p=>Fls; q \ propn |] ==> H |- p=>q" apply (frule thms_in_pl) apply (rule deduction) apply (rule weaken_left_cons [THEN thms_notE]) apply (blast intro: thms.H elim: ImpE)+ done lemma Imp_Fls: "[| H |- p; H |- q=>Fls |] ==> H |- (p=>q)=>Fls" apply (frule thms_in_pl) apply (frule thms_in_pl [of concl: "q=>Fls"]) apply (rule deduction) apply (erule weaken_left_cons [THEN thms_MP]) apply (rule consI1 [THEN thms.H, THEN thms_MP]) apply (blast intro: weaken_left_cons elim: ImpE)+ done lemma hyps_thms_if: "p \ propn ==> hyps(p,t) |- (if is_true(p,t) then p else p=>Fls)" -- {* Typical example of strengthening the induction statement. *} apply simp apply (induct_tac p) apply (simp_all add: thms_I thms.H) apply (safe elim!: Fls_Imp [THEN weaken_left_Un1] Fls_Imp [THEN weaken_left_Un2]) apply (blast intro: weaken_left_Un1 weaken_left_Un2 weaken_right Imp_Fls)+ done lemma logcon_thms_p: "[| p \ propn; 0 |= p |] ==> hyps(p,t) |- p" -- {* Key lemma for completeness; yields a set of assumptions satisfying @{text p} *} apply (drule hyps_thms_if) apply (simp add: logcon_def) done text {* For proving certain theorems in our new propositional logic. *} lemmas propn_SIs = propn.intros deduction and propn_Is = thms_in_pl thms.H thms.H [THEN thms_MP] text {* The excluded middle in the form of an elimination rule. *} lemma thms_excluded_middle: "[| p \ propn; q \ propn |] ==> H |- (p=>q) => ((p=>Fls)=>q) => q" apply (rule deduction [THEN deduction]) apply (rule thms.DN [THEN thms_MP]) apply (best intro!: propn_SIs intro: propn_Is)+ done lemma thms_excluded_middle_rule: "[| cons(p,H) |- q; cons(p=>Fls,H) |- q; p \ propn |] ==> H |- q" -- {* Hard to prove directly because it requires cuts *} apply (rule thms_excluded_middle [THEN thms_MP, THEN thms_MP]) apply (blast intro!: propn_SIs intro: propn_Is)+ done subsubsection {* Completeness -- lemmas for reducing the set of assumptions *} text {* For the case @{prop "hyps(p,t)-cons(#v,Y) |- p"} we also have @{prop "hyps(p,t)-{#v} \ hyps(p, t-{v})"}. *} lemma hyps_Diff: "p \ propn ==> hyps(p, t-{v}) \ cons(#v=>Fls, hyps(p,t)-{#v})" by (induct_tac p) auto text {* For the case @{prop "hyps(p,t)-cons(#v => Fls,Y) |- p"} we also have @{prop "hyps(p,t)-{#v=>Fls} \ hyps(p, cons(v,t))"}. *} lemma hyps_cons: "p \ propn ==> hyps(p, cons(v,t)) \ cons(#v, hyps(p,t)-{#v=>Fls})" by (induct_tac p) auto text {* Two lemmas for use with @{text weaken_left} *} lemma cons_Diff_same: "B-C \ cons(a, B-cons(a,C))" by blast lemma cons_Diff_subset2: "cons(a, B-{c}) - D \ cons(a, B-cons(c,D))" by blast text {* The set @{term "hyps(p,t)"} is finite, and elements have the form @{term "#v"} or @{term "#v=>Fls"}; could probably prove the stronger @{prop "hyps(p,t) \ Fin(hyps(p,0) \ hyps(p,nat))"}. *} lemma hyps_finite: "p \ propn ==> hyps(p,t) \ Fin(\v \ nat. {#v, #v=>Fls})" by (induct_tac p) auto lemmas Diff_weaken_left = Diff_mono [OF _ subset_refl, THEN weaken_left] text {* Induction on the finite set of assumptions @{term "hyps(p,t0)"}. We may repeatedly subtract assumptions until none are left! *} lemma completeness_0_lemma [rule_format]: "[| p \ propn; 0 |= p |] ==> \t. hyps(p,t) - hyps(p,t0) |- p" apply (frule hyps_finite) apply (erule Fin_induct) apply (simp add: logcon_thms_p Diff_0) txt {* inductive step *} apply safe txt {* Case @{prop "hyps(p,t)-cons(#v,Y) |- p"} *} apply (rule thms_excluded_middle_rule) apply (erule_tac [3] propn.intros) apply (blast intro: cons_Diff_same [THEN weaken_left]) apply (blast intro: cons_Diff_subset2 [THEN weaken_left] hyps_Diff [THEN Diff_weaken_left]) txt {* Case @{prop "hyps(p,t)-cons(#v => Fls,Y) |- p"} *} apply (rule thms_excluded_middle_rule) apply (erule_tac [3] propn.intros) apply (blast intro: cons_Diff_subset2 [THEN weaken_left] hyps_cons [THEN Diff_weaken_left]) apply (blast intro: cons_Diff_same [THEN weaken_left]) done subsubsection {* Completeness theorem *} lemma completeness_0: "[| p \ propn; 0 |= p |] ==> 0 |- p" -- {* The base case for completeness *} apply (rule Diff_cancel [THEN subst]) apply (blast intro: completeness_0_lemma) done lemma logcon_Imp: "[| cons(p,H) |= q |] ==> H |= p=>q" -- {* A semantic analogue of the Deduction Theorem *} by (simp add: logcon_def) lemma completeness [rule_format]: "H \ Fin(propn) ==> \p \ propn. H |= p --> H |- p" apply (erule Fin_induct) apply (safe intro!: completeness_0) apply (rule weaken_left_cons [THEN thms_MP]) apply (blast intro!: logcon_Imp propn.intros) apply (blast intro: propn_Is) done theorem thms_iff: "H \ Fin(propn) ==> H |- p <-> H |= p \ p \ propn" by (blast intro: soundness completeness thms_in_pl) end