header {* 

  Nominal Isabelle Tutorial at POPL'11

  ====================================

  Nominal Isabelle is a definitional extension of Isabelle/HOL, which

  means it does not add any new axioms to higher-order logic. It just

  adds new definitions and an infrastructure for 'nominal resoning'.

  The jEdit Interface

  -------------------

  The Isabelle theorem prover comes with an interface for jEdit. 

  Unlike many other theorem prover interfaces (e.g. ProofGeneral) where you 

  advance a 'checked' region in a proof script, this interface immediately 

  checks the whole buffer. The text you type is also immediately checked. 

  Malformed text or unfinished proofs are highlighted in red with a little 

  red 'stop' signal on the left-hand side. If you drag the 'red-box' cursor 

  over a line, the Output window gives further feedback. 

  Note: If a section is not parsed correctly, the work-around is to cut it 

  out and paste it back into the text (cut-out: Ctrl + X; paste in: Ctrl + V;

  Cmd is Ctrl on the Mac)

  Nominal Isabelle and jEdit can be started by typing on the command line

     isabelle jedit -l HOL-Nominal2

     isabelle jedit -l HOL-Nominal2 A.thy B.thy ...

  Symbols

  ------- 

  Symbols can considerably improve the readability of your statements and proofs. 

  They can be input by just typing 'name-of-symbol' where 'name-of-symbol' is the 

  usual latex name of that symbol. A little window will then appear in which 

  you can select the symbol. With `Escape' you can ignore any suggestion.

  There are some handy short-cuts for frequently used symbols. 

  For example 

      short-cut  symbol

          =>      \<Rightarrow>

          ==>     \<Longrightarrow>

          -->     \<longrightarrow>

          !       \<forall>        

          ?       \<exists>

          /\      \<and>

          \/      \<or>

          ~       \<not>

          ~=      \<noteq>

          :       \<in>

          ~:      \<notin>

  For nominal the following two symbols have a special meaning

        \<sharp>    sharp     (freshness)

        \<bullet>    bullet    (permutation application)

*}

theory Tutorial1s

imports Lambda

begin

section {* Theories *}

text {*

  All formal developments in Isabelle are part of a theory. A theory 

  needs to have a name and must import some pre-existing theory. The 

  imported theory will normally be Nominal2 (which provides many useful 

  concepts like set-theory, lists, nominal things etc). For the purpose 

  of this tutorial we import the theory Lambda.thy, which contains 

  already some useful definitions for (alpha-equated) lambda terms.

*}

section {* Types *}

text {*

  Isabelle is based on simple types including some polymorphism. It also 

  includes overloading, which means that sometimes explicit type annotations 

  need to be given.

    - Base types include: nat, bool, string, lam (defined in the Lambda theory)

    - Type formers include: 'a list, ('a \<times> 'b), 'c set   

    - Type variables are written like in ML with an apostrophe: 'a, 'b, \<dots>

  Types known to Isabelle can be queried using the command "typ".

*}

typ nat

typ bool

typ string           

typ lam           -- {* alpha-equated lambda terms defined in Lambda.thy *}

typ name          -- {* type of (object) variables defined in Lambda.thy *}

typ "('a \<times> 'b)"   -- {* pair type *}

typ "'c set"      -- {* set type *}

typ "'a list"     -- {* list type *}

typ "lam \<Rightarrow> nat"   -- {* type of functions from lambda terms to natural numbers *}

text {* Some malformed types - note the "stop" signal on the left margin *}

(*

typ boolean     -- {* undeclared type *} 

typ set         -- {* type argument missing *}

*)

section {* Terms *}

text {*

   Every term in Isabelle needs to be well-typed. However they can have 

   polymorphic type. Whether a term is accepted can be queried using

   the command "term". 

*}

term c                 -- {* a variable of polymorphic type *}

term "1::nat"          -- {* the constant 1 in natural numbers *}

term 1                 -- {* the constant 1 with polymorphic type *}

term "{1, 2, 3::nat}"  -- {* the set containing natural numbers 1, 2 and 3 *}

term "[1, 2, 3]"       -- {* the list containing the polymorphic numbers 1, 2 and 3 *}

term "(True, ''c'')"   -- {* a pair consisting of the boolean true and the string "c" *}

term "Suc 0"           -- {* successor of 0, in other words 1::nat *}

term "Lam [x].Var x"   -- {* a lambda-term *}

term "App t1 t2"       -- {* another lambda-term *}

term "x::name"         -- {* an (object) variable of type name *}

term "atom (x::name)"  -- {* atom is an overloded function *}

text {* 

  Lam [x].Var is the syntax we made up for lambda abstractions. If you

  prefer, you can have your own syntax (but \<lambda> is already taken up for 

  Isabelle's functions). We also came up with the type "name" for variables. 

  You can introduce your own types of object variables using the 

  command atom_decl: 

*}

atom_decl ident

atom_decl ty_var

text {*

  Isabelle provides some useful colour feedback about its constants (black), 

  free variables (blue) and bound variables (green).

*}

term "True"    -- {* a constant defined somewhere...written in black *}

term "true"    -- {* not recognised as a constant, therefore it is interpreted

                     as a free variable, written in blue *}

term "\<forall>x. P x" -- {* x is bound (green), P is free (blue) *}

text {* Formulae in Isabelle/HOL are terms of type bool *}

term "True"

term "True \<and> False"

term "True \<or> B"

term "{1,2,3} = {3,2,1}"

term "\<forall>x. P x"

term "A \<longrightarrow> B"

term "atom a \<sharp> t"   -- {* freshness in Nominal *}

text {*

  When working with Isabelle, one deals with an object logic (that is HOL) and 

  Isabelle's rule framework (called Pure). Occasionally one has to pay attention 

  to this fact. But for the moment we ignore this completely.

*}

term "A \<longrightarrow> B"  -- {* versus *}

term "A \<Longrightarrow> B"

term "\<forall>x. P x"  -- {* versus *}

term "\<And>x. P x"

section {* Inductive Definitions: Evaluation Relation *}

text {*

  In this section we want to define inductively the evaluation

  relation and for cbv-reduction relation.

  Inductive definitions in Isabelle start with the keyword "inductive" 

  and a predicate name.  One can optionally provide a type for the predicate. 

  Clauses of the inductive predicate are introduced by "where" and more than 

  two clauses need to be separated by "|". One can also give a name to each 

  clause and indicate that it should be added to the hints database ("[intro]"). 

  A typical clause has some premises and a conclusion. This is written in 

  Isabelle as:

   "premise \<Longrightarrow> conclusion"

   "premise1 \<Longrightarrow> premise2 \<Longrightarrow> \<dots> premisen \<Longrightarrow> conclusion"

  There is an alternative way of writing the latter clause as

   "\<lbrakk>premise1; premise2; \<dots> premisen\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> conclusion"

  If no premise is present, then one just writes

   "conclusion"

  Below we give two definitions for the transitive closure

*}

inductive

  eval :: "lam \<Rightarrow> lam \<Rightarrow> bool" ("_ \<Down> _" [60, 60] 60) 

where

  e_Lam[intro]:  "Lam [x].t \<Down> Lam [x].t"

| e_App[intro]:  "\<lbrakk>t1 \<Down> Lam [x].t; t2 \<Down> v'; t[x::=v'] \<Down> v\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> App t1 t2 \<Down> v"

text {* 

  Values and cbv are also defined using inductive.  

*}

inductive

  val :: "lam \<Rightarrow> bool" 

where

  v_Lam[intro]:   "val (Lam [x].t)"

section {* Theorems *}

text {*

  A central concept in Isabelle is that of theorems. Isabelle's theorem

  database can be queried using 

*}

thm e_App

thm e_Lam

thm conjI

thm conjunct1

text {* 

  Notice that theorems usually contain schematic variables (e.g. ?P, ?Q, \<dots>). 

  These schematic variables can be substituted with any term (of the right type 

  of course). 

  When defining the predicates beta_star, Isabelle provides us automatically 

  with the following theorems that state how they can be introduced and what 

  constitutes an induction over them. 

*}

thm eval.intros

thm eval.induct

section {* Lemmas / Theorems / Corollaries *}

text {*

  Whether to use lemma, theorem or corollary makes no semantic difference 

  in Isabelle. 

  A lemma starts with "lemma" and consists of a statement ("shows \<dots>") and 

  optionally a lemma name, some type-information for variables ("fixes \<dots>") 

  and some assumptions ("assumes \<dots>"). 

  Lemmas also need to have a proof, but ignore this 'detail' for the moment.

  Examples are

*}

lemma alpha_equ:

  shows "Lam [x].Var x = Lam [y].Var y"

  by (simp add: lam.eq_iff Abs1_eq_iff lam.fresh fresh_at_base)

lemma Lam_freshness:

  assumes a: "atom y \<sharp> Lam [x].t"

  shows "(y = x) \<or> (y \<noteq> x \<and> atom y \<sharp> t)"

  using a by (auto simp add: lam.fresh Abs_fresh_iff) 

lemma neutral_element:

  fixes x::"nat"

  shows "x + 0 = x"

  by simp

text {*

  Note that in the last statement, the explicit type annotation is important 

  in order for Isabelle to be able to figure out what 0 stands for (e.g. a 

  natural number, a vector, etc) and which lemmas to apply.

*}

section {* Isar Proofs *}

text {*

  Isar is a language for writing formal proofs that can be understood by humans 

  and by Isabelle. An Isar proof can be thought of as a sequence of 'stepping stones' 

  that start with some assumptions and lead to the goal to be established. Every such 

  stepping stone is introduced by "have" followed by the statement of the stepping 

  stone. An exception is the goal to be proved, which need to be introduced with "show".

      have "statement"  \<dots>

      show "goal_to_be_proved" \<dots>

  Since proofs usually do not proceed in a linear fashion, labels can be given 

  to every stepping stone and they can be used later to explicitly refer to this 

  corresponding stepping stone ("using").

      have label: "statement1"  \<dots>

      \<dots>

      have "later_statement" using label \<dots>

  Each stepping stone (or have-statement) needs to have a justification. The 

  simplest justification is "sorry" which admits any stepping stone, even false 

  ones (this is good during the development of proofs). 

      have "outrageous_false_statement" sorry

  Assumptions can be 'justified' using "by fact". 

      have "assumption" by fact

  Derived facts can be justified using 

      have "statement" by simp    -- simplification 

      have "statement" by auto    -- proof search and simplification 

      have "statement" by blast   -- only proof search 

  If facts or lemmas are needed in order to justify a have-statement, then

  one can feed these facts into the proof by using "using label \<dots>" or 

  "using theorem-name \<dots>". More than one label at a time is allowed. For

  example

      have "statement" using label1 label2 theorem_name by auto

  Induction proofs in Isar are set up by indicating over which predicate(s) 

  the induction proceeds ("using a b") followed by the command "proof (induct)". 

  In this way, Isabelle uses defaults for which induction should be performed. 

  These defaults can be overridden by giving more information, like the variable 

  over which a structural induction should proceed, or a specific induction principle, 

  such as well-founded inductions. 

  After the induction is set up, the proof proceeds by cases. In Isar these 

  cases can be given in any order. Most commonly they are started with "case" and the 

  name of the case, and optionally some legible names for the variables used inside 

  the case. 

  In each "case", we need to establish a statement introduced by "show". Once 

  this has been done, the next case can be started using "next". When all cases 

  are completed, the proof can be finished using "qed".

  This means a typical induction proof has the following pattern

     proof (induct)

       case \<dots>

       \<dots>

       show \<dots>

     next

       case \<dots>

       \<dots>

       show \<dots>

     \<dots>

     qed

   Two very simple example proofs are as follows.

*}

subsection {* EXERCISE 1 *}

lemma eval_val:

  assumes a: "val t"

  shows "t \<Down> t"

using a

proof (induct)

  case (v_Lam x t)

  show "Lam [x]. t \<Down> Lam [x]. t" by auto

qed

subsection {* EXERCISE 2 *}

text {* Fill the gaps in the proof below. *}

lemma eval_to_val:

  assumes a: "t \<Down> t'"

  shows "val t'"

using a

proof (induct)

  case (e_Lam x t)

  show "val (Lam [x].t)" by auto

next

  case (e_App t1 x t t2 v v')

  -- {* all assumptions in this case *}

  have "t1 \<Down> Lam [x].t" by fact

  have ih1: "val (Lam [x]. t)" by fact

  have "t2 \<Down> v" by fact

  have ih2: "val v" by fact

  have "t [x ::= v] \<Down> v'" by fact

  have ih3: "val v'" by fact

  show "val v'" using ih3 by auto

qed

section {* Datatypes: Evaluation Contexts*}

text {*

  Datatypes can be defined in Isabelle as follows: we have to provide the name 

  of the datatype and a list its type-constructors. Each type-constructor needs 

  to have the information about the types of its arguments, and optionally 

  can also contain some information about pretty syntax. For example, we like

  to write "\<box>" for holes.

*}

datatype ctx = 

    Hole ("\<box>")  

  | CAppL "ctx" "lam"

  | CAppR "lam" "ctx"

text {* Now Isabelle knows about: *}

typ ctx

term "\<box>"

term "CAppL"

term "CAppL \<box> (Var x)"

subsection {* MINI EXERCISE *}

text {*

  Try and see what happens if you apply a Hole to a Hole? 

*}

section {* Machines for Evaluation *}

type_synonym ctxs = "ctx list"

inductive

  machine :: "lam \<Rightarrow> ctxs \<Rightarrow>lam \<Rightarrow> ctxs \<Rightarrow> bool" ("<_,_> \<mapsto> <_,_>" [60, 60, 60, 60] 60)

where

  m1: "<App t1 t2, Es> \<mapsto> <t1, (CAppL \<box> t2) # Es>"

| m2: "val v \<Longrightarrow> <v, (CAppL \<box> t2) # Es> \<mapsto> <t2, (CAppR v \<box>) # Es>"

| m3: "val v \<Longrightarrow> <v, (CAppR (Lam [x].t) \<box>) # Es> \<mapsto> <t[x ::= v], Es>"

text {*

  Since the machine defined above only performs a single reduction,

  we need to define the transitive closure of this machine. *}

inductive 

  machines :: "lam \<Rightarrow> ctxs \<Rightarrow> lam \<Rightarrow> ctxs \<Rightarrow> bool" ("<_,_> \<mapsto>* <_,_>" [60, 60, 60, 60] 60)

where

  ms1: "<t,Es> \<mapsto>* <t,Es>"

| ms2: "\<lbrakk><t1,Es1> \<mapsto> <t2,Es2>; <t2,Es2> \<mapsto>* <t3,Es3>\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> <t1,Es1> \<mapsto>* <t3,Es3>"

declare machine.intros[intro] machines.intros[intro]

section {* EXERCISE 3 *}

text {*

  We need to show that the machines-relation is transitive.

  Fill in the gaps below.   

*}

lemma ms3[intro]:

  assumes a: "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e2, Es2>" 

  and     b: "<e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>"

  shows "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>"

using a b

proof(induct)

  case (ms1 e1 Es1)

  have c: "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

  then show "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by simp

next

  case (ms2 e1 Es1 e2 Es2 e2' Es2') 

  have ih: "<e2', Es2'> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3> \<Longrightarrow> <e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

  have d1: "<e2', Es2'> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

  have d2: "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto> <e2, Es2>" by fact

  have d3: "<e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" using ih d1 by auto

  show "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" using d2 d3 by auto

qed

text {* 

  Just like gotos in the Basic programming language, labels often reduce 

  the readability of proofs. Therefore one can use in Isar the notation

  "then have" in order to feed a have-statement to the proof of 

  the next have-statement. This is used in teh second case below.

*}

lemma 

  assumes a: "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e2, Es2>" 

  and     b: "<e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>"

  shows "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>"

using a b

proof(induct)

  case (ms1 e1 Es1)

  show "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

next

  case (ms2 e1 Es1 e2 Es2 e2' Es2')

  have ih: "<e2', Es2'> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3> \<Longrightarrow> <e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

  have "<e2', Es2'> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

  then have d3: "<e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" using ih by simp

  have d2: "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto> <e2, Es2>" by fact

  show "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" using d2 d3 by auto

qed

text {* 

  The label ih2 cannot be got rid of in this way, because it is used 

  two lines below and we cannot rearange them. We can still avoid the

  label by feeding a sequence of facts into a proof using the 

  "moreover"-chaining mechanism:

   have "statement_1" \<dots>

   moreover

   have "statement_2" \<dots>

   \<dots>

   moreover

   have "statement_n" \<dots>

   ultimately have "statement" \<dots>

  In this chain, all "statement_i" can be used in the proof of the final 

  "statement". With this we can simplify our proof further to:

*}

lemma 

  assumes a: "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e2, Es2>" 

  and     b: "<e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>"

  shows "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>"

using a b

proof(induct)

  case (ms1 e1 Es1)

  show "<e1, Es1> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

next

  case (ms2 e1 Es1 e2 Es2 e2' Es2')

  have ih: "<e2', Es2'> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3> \<Longrightarrow> <e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

  have "<e2', Es2'> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" by fact

  then have "<e2, Es2> \<mapsto>* <e3, Es3>" using ih by simp