(* How to change the notation for \<lbrakk> \<rbrakk> meta-level implications? *)

(*<*)

theory Paper

imports "Quotient"

        "LaTeXsugar"

        "../Nominal/FSet"

begin

notation (latex output)

  rel_conj ("_ OOO _" [53, 53] 52) and

  "op -->" (infix "\<rightarrow>" 100) and

  "==>" (infix "\<Rightarrow>" 100) and

  fun_map (infix "\<longrightarrow>" 51) and

  fun_rel (infix "\<Longrightarrow>" 51) and

  list_eq (infix "\<approx>" 50) and (* Not sure if we want this notation...? *)

  fempty ("\<emptyset>\<^isub>f") and

  funion ("_ \<union>\<^isub>f _") and

  finsert ("{_} \<union>\<^isub>f _") and 

  Cons ("_::_") and

  concat ("flat") and

  fconcat ("fset'_flat")

ML {*

fun nth_conj n (_, r) = nth (HOLogic.dest_conj r) n;

fun style_lhs_rhs proj = Scan.succeed (fn ctxt => fn t =>

  let

    val concl =

      Object_Logic.drop_judgment (ProofContext.theory_of ctxt) (Logic.strip_imp_concl t)

  in

    case concl of (_ $ l $ r) => proj (l, r)

    | _ => error ("Binary operator expected in term: " ^ Syntax.string_of_term ctxt concl)

  end);

*}

setup {*

  Term_Style.setup "rhs1" (style_lhs_rhs (nth_conj 0)) #>

  Term_Style.setup "rhs2" (style_lhs_rhs (nth_conj 1)) #>

  Term_Style.setup "rhs3" (style_lhs_rhs (nth_conj 2))

*}

(*>*)

section {* Introduction *}

text {* 

   \begin{flushright}

  {\em ``Not using a [quotient] package has its advantages: we do not have to\\ 

    collect all the theorems we shall ever want into one giant list;''}\\

    Larry Paulson \cite{Paulson06}

  \end{flushright}\smallskip

  \noindent

  Isabelle is a popular generic theorem prover in which many logics can be

  implemented. The most widely used one, however, is Higher-Order Logic

  (HOL). This logic consists of a small number of axioms and inference rules

  over a simply-typed term-language. Safe reasoning in HOL is ensured by two

  very restricted mechanisms for extending the logic: one is the definition of

  new constants in terms of existing ones; the other is the introduction of

  new types by identifying non-empty subsets in existing types. It is well

  constructions in HOL (see \cite{Homeier05,Paulson06}).  For example the

  integers in Isabelle/HOL are constructed by a quotient construction over the

  type @{typ "nat \<times> nat"} and the equivalence relation

  @{text [display, indent=10] "(n\<^isub>1, n\<^isub>2) \<approx> (m\<^isub>1, m\<^isub>2) \<equiv> n\<^isub>1 + n\<^isub>2 = m\<^isub>1 + m\<^isub>2"}

  \noindent

  This constructions yields the new type @{typ int} and definitions for @{text

  "0"} and @{text "1"} of type @{typ int} can be given in terms of pairs of

  natural numbers (namely @{text "(0, 0)"} and @{text "(1, 0)"}). Operations

  such as @{text "add"} with type @{typ "int \<Rightarrow> int \<Rightarrow> int"} can be defined in

  terms of operations on pairs of natural numbers (namely @{text

  @{text [display, indent=10] "xs \<approx> ys \<equiv> (\<forall>x. x \<in> xs \<longleftrightarrow> x \<in> ys)"}

  \noindent

  which states that two lists are equivalent if every element in one list is also

  member in the other (@{text "\<in>"} stands here for membership in lists). The

  empty finite set, written @{term "{||}"}, can then be defined as the 

  empty list and the union of two finite sets, written @{text "\<union>\<^isub>f"}, as list append. 

  An area where quotients are ubiquitous is reasoning about programming language

  calculi. A simple example is the lambda-calculus, whose ``raw'' terms are defined as

  @{text [display, indent=10] "t ::= x | t t | \<lambda>x.t"}

  \noindent

  \cite[Pages 94--104]{CurryFeys58} for some ``rough'' sketches of a proof

  about ``raw'' lambda-terms). In contrast, if we reason about

  $\alpha$-equated lambda-terms, that means terms quotient according to

  $\alpha$-equivalence, then the reasoning infrastructure provided by, 

  for example, Nominal Isabelle \cite{UrbanKaliszyk11} makes the formal 

  The difficulty is that in order to be able to reason about integers, finite

  sets or $\alpha$-equated lambda-terms one needs to establish a reasoning

  infrastructure by transferring, or \emph{lifting}, definitions and theorems

  from the ``raw'' type @{typ "nat \<times> nat"} to the quotient type @{typ int}

  (similarly for finite sets and $\alpha$-equated lambda-terms). This lifting

  The purpose of a \emph{quotient package} is to ease the lifting and automate

  the reasoning as much as possible. In the context of HOL, there have been

  \begin{center}

  \mbox{}\hspace{20mm}\begin{tikzpicture}

  %%\draw[step=2mm] (-4,-1) grid (4,1);

  \draw[very thick] (0.7,0.3) circle (4.85mm);

  \draw[rounded corners=1mm, very thick] ( 0.0,-0.9) rectangle ( 1.8, 0.9);

  \draw[rounded corners=1mm, very thick] (-1.95,0.8) rectangle (-2.9,-0.195);

  \draw (-2.0, 0.8) --  (0.7,0.8);

  \draw (-2.0,-0.195)  -- (0.7,-0.195);

  \draw ( 0.7, 0.23) node {\begin{tabular}{@ {}c@ {}}equiv-\\[-1mm]clas.\end{tabular}};

  \draw (-2.45, 0.35) node {\begin{tabular}{@ {}c@ {}}new\\[-1mm]type\end{tabular}};

  \draw (1.8, 0.35) node[right=-0.1mm]

    {\begin{tabular}{@ {}l@ {}}existing\\[-1mm] type\\ (sets of raw terms)\end{tabular}};

  \draw (0.9, -0.55) node {\begin{tabular}{@ {}l@ {}}non-empty\\[-1mm]subset\end{tabular}};

  \draw[->, very thick] (-1.8, 0.36) -- (-0.1,0.36);

  \draw[<-, very thick] (-1.8, 0.16) -- (-0.1,0.16);

  \draw (-0.95, 0.26) node[above=0.4mm] {@{text Rep}};

  \draw (-0.95, 0.26) node[below=0.4mm] {@{text Abs}};

  \end{tikzpicture}

  \end{center}

  \noindent

  The starting point is an existing type over which a user-given equivalence

  relation is defined. With this input, the package introduces a new type,

  of type @{typ int} can be defined as

  \begin{isabelle}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ %%%

  @{text "0 \<equiv> Abs (0, 0)"}\hspace{10mm}@{text "1 \<equiv> Abs (1, 0)"}

  \end{isabelle}

  \noindent

  \noindent

  add them according to @{text "add\<^bsub>nat\<times>nat\<^esub>"} and then take the

  abstraction of the result.  This is all straightforward and the existing

  quotient packages can deal with such definitions. But what is surprising

  that none of them can deal with more complicated definitions involving

  \emph{compositions} of quotients. Such compositions are needed for example

  @{thm [display, indent=10] concat.simps(1) concat.simps(2)[no_vars]}

  \noindent

  We expect that the corresponding operator on finite sets, written @{term "fconcat"},

  behaves as follows:

  @{thm [display, indent=10] fconcat_empty[no_vars] fconcat_insert[no_vars]}

  \noindent

  The problem is that we want to quotient lists to obtain finite sets and 

  @{term concat} is of type @{text "(\<alpha> list) list \<Rightarrow> \<alpha> list"}. We expect

  that @{term "fconcat"} has type @{text "(\<alpha> fset) fset \<Rightarrow> \<alpha> fset"}. But 

  what should its definition be? It is not possible to just take the representation

  of the argument and then take the abstraction of the result of flattening 

  the resulting list. The problem is that a single @{text "Rep"} only gives

  us lists of finite sets, not lists of lists. It turns out that we need

  to be able to build aggregate representation and abstraction function, which in

  case of @{term "fconcat"} produce the following definition

  @{text [display, indent=10] "fset_flat S \<equiv> Abs (concat ((map Rep \<circ> Rep) S))"}

  \noindent

  where @{term map} is the usual mapping function for lists.

*}

subsection {* Contributions *}

text {*

  We present the detailed lifting procedure, which was not shown before.

  The quotient package presented in this paper has the following

  advantages over existing packages:

  \begin{itemize}

  \item We define quotient composition, function map composition and

    relation map composition. This lets lifting polymorphic types with

    subtypes quotiented as well. We extend the notions of

    respectfulness and preservation to cope with quotient

    composition.

  \item We allow lifting only some occurrences of quotiented

    types. Rsp/Prs extended. (used in nominal)

  \item The quotient package is very modular. Definitions can be added

    separately, rsp and prs can be proved separately, Quotients and maps

    can be defined separately and theorems can

    be lifted on a need basis. (useful with type-classes).

  \item Can be used both manually (attribute, separate tactics,

    rsp/prs databases) and programatically (automated definition of

    lifted constants, the rsp proof obligations and theorem statement

    translation according to given quotients).

  \end{itemize}

*}

text {*

  In this section we present the definitions of a quotient that follow

  those by Homeier, the proofs can be found there.

  \begin{definition}[Quotient]

  A relation $R$ with an abstraction function $Abs$

  and a representation function $Rep$ is a \emph{quotient}

  if and only if:

  \begin{enumerate}

  \item @{thm (rhs1) Quotient_def[of "R", no_vars]}

  \item @{thm (rhs2) Quotient_def[of "R", no_vars]}

  \item @{thm (rhs3) Quotient_def[of "R", no_vars]}

  \end{enumerate}

  \end{definition}

  \begin{definition}[Relation map and function map]\\

  @{thm fun_rel_def[of "R1" "R2", no_vars]}\\

  @{thm fun_map_def[no_vars]}

  \end{definition}

  The main theorems for building higher order quotients is:

  \begin{lemma}[Function Quotient]

  If @{thm (prem 1) fun_quotient[no_vars]} and @{thm (prem 2) fun_quotient[no_vars]}

  then @{thm (concl) fun_quotient[no_vars]}

  \end{lemma}

*}

subsection {* Higher Order Logic *}

text {*

  Types:

  \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber

  @{text "\<sigma> ::="} & @{text "\<alpha>"} & \textrm{(type variable)} \\ \nonumber

      @{text "|"} & @{text "(\<sigma>,\<dots>,\<sigma>)\<kappa>"} & \textrm{(type construction)}

  \end{eqnarray}

  Terms:

  \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber

  @{text "t ::="} & @{text "x\<^isup>\<sigma>"} & \textrm{(variable)} \\ \nonumber

      @{text "|"} & @{text "c\<^isup>\<sigma>"} & \textrm{(constant)} \\ \nonumber

      @{text "|"} & @{text "t t"} & \textrm{(application)} \\ \nonumber

      @{text "|"} & @{text "\<lambda>x\<^isup>\<sigma>. t"} & \textrm{(abstraction)} \\ \nonumber

  \end{eqnarray}

*}

section {* Constants *}

(* Say more about containers? *)

text {*

  To define a constant on the lifted type, an aggregate abstraction

  function is applied to the raw constant. Below we describe the operation

  that generates

  an aggregate @{term "Abs"} or @{term "Rep"} function given the

  compound raw type and the compound quotient type.

  This operation will also be used in translations of theorem statements

  and in the lifting procedure.

  The operation is additionally able to descend into types for which

  maps are known. Such maps for most common types (list, pair, sum,

  option, \ldots) are described in Homeier, and we assume that @{text "map"}

  is the function that returns a map for a given type. Then REP/ABS is defined

  as follows:

  \begin{itemize}

  \item @{text "ABS(\<alpha>\<^isub>1, \<alpha>\<^isub>2)"} = @{text "id"}

  \item @{text "REP(\<alpha>\<^isub>1, \<alpha>\<^isub>2)"}  =  @{text "id"}

  \item @{text "ABS(\<sigma>, \<sigma>)"}  =  @{text "id"}

  \item @{text "REP(\<sigma>, \<sigma>)"}  =  @{text "id"}

  \item @{text "ABS(\<sigma>\<^isub>1\<rightarrow>\<sigma>\<^isub>2,\<tau>\<^isub>1\<rightarrow>\<tau>\<^isub>2)"}  =  @{text "REP(\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<tau>\<^isub>1) \<longrightarrow> ABS(\<sigma>\<^isub>2,\<tau>\<^isub>2)"}

  \item @{text "REP(\<sigma>\<^isub>1\<rightarrow>\<sigma>\<^isub>2,\<tau>\<^isub>1\<rightarrow>\<tau>\<^isub>2)"}  =  @{text "ABS(\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<tau>\<^isub>1) \<longrightarrow> REP(\<sigma>\<^isub>2,\<tau>\<^isub>2)"}

  \item @{text "ABS((\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<sigma>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>, (\<tau>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<tau>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>)"}  =  @{text "(map \<kappa>) (ABS(\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<tau>\<^isub>1)) \<dots> (ABS(\<sigma>\<^isub>n,\<tau>\<^isub>n))"}

  \item @{text "REP((\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<sigma>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>, (\<tau>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<tau>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>)"}  =  @{text "(map \<kappa>) (REP(\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<tau>\<^isub>1)) \<dots> (REP(\<sigma>\<^isub>n,\<tau>\<^isub>n))"}

  \item @{text "ABS((\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<sigma>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>\<^isub>1, (\<tau>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<tau>\<^isub>m))\<kappa>\<^isub>2)"}  =  @{text "Abs_\<kappa>\<^isub>2 \<circ> (map \<kappa>\<^isub>1) (ABS(\<rho>\<^isub>1,\<nu>\<^isub>1) \<dots> (ABS(\<rho>\<^isub>p,\<nu>\<^isub>p)"} provided @{text "\<eta> \<kappa>\<^isub>2 = (\<alpha>\<^isub>1\<dots>\<alpha>\<^isub>p)\<kappa>\<^isub>1 \<and> \<exists>s. s(\<sigma>s\<kappa>\<^isub>1)=\<rho>s\<kappa>\<^isub>1 \<and> s(\<tau>s\<kappa>\<^isub>2)=\<nu>s\<kappa>\<^isub>2"}

  \item @{text "REP((\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<sigma>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>\<^isub>1, (\<tau>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<tau>\<^isub>m))\<kappa>\<^isub>2)"}  =  @{text "(map \<kappa>\<^isub>1) (REP(\<rho>\<^isub>1,\<nu>\<^isub>1) \<dots> (REP(\<rho>\<^isub>p,\<nu>\<^isub>p) \<circ> Rep_\<kappa>\<^isub>2"} provided @{text "\<eta> \<kappa>\<^isub>2 = (\<alpha>\<^isub>1\<dots>\<alpha>\<^isub>p)\<kappa>\<^isub>1 \<and> \<exists>s. s(\<sigma>s\<kappa>\<^isub>1)=\<rho>s\<kappa>\<^isub>1 \<and> s(\<tau>s\<kappa>\<^isub>2)=\<nu>s\<kappa>\<^isub>2"}

  \end{itemize}

  Apart from the last 2 points the definition is same as the one implemented in

  in Homeier's HOL package. Adding composition in last two cases is necessary

  for compositional quotients. We ilustrate the different behaviour of the

  definition by showing the derived definition of @{term fconcat}:

  @{thm fconcat_def[no_vars]}

  The aggregate @{term Abs} function takes a finite set of finite sets

  and applies @{term "map rep_fset"} composed with @{term rep_fset} to

  its input, obtaining a list of lists, passes the result to @{term concat}

  obtaining a list and applies @{term abs_fset} obtaining the composed

  finite set.

*}

subsection {* Respectfulness *}

text {*

  A respectfulness lemma for a constant states that the equivalence

  class returned by this constant depends only on the equivalence

  classes of the arguments applied to the constant. To automatically

  lift a theorem that talks about a raw constant, to a theorem about

  the quotient type a respectfulness theorem is required.

  A respectfulness condition for a constant can be expressed in

  terms of an aggregate relation between the constant and itself,

  for example the respectfullness for @{term "append"}

  can be stated as:

  @{thm [display] append_rsp[no_vars]}

  \noindent

  Which after unfolding @{term "op \<Longrightarrow>"} is equivalent to:

  @{thm [display] append_rsp_unfolded[no_vars]}

  An aggregate relation is defined in terms of relation composition,

  so we define it first:

  \begin{definition}[Composition of Relations]

  @{abbrev "rel_conj R1 R2"} where @{text OO} is the predicate

  composition @{thm pred_compI[no_vars]}

  \end{definition}

  The aggregate relation for an aggregate raw type and quotient type

  is defined as:

  \begin{itemize}

  \item @{text "REL(\<alpha>\<^isub>1, \<alpha>\<^isub>2)"} = @{text "op ="}

  \item @{text "REL(\<sigma>, \<sigma>)"}  =  @{text "op ="}

  \item @{text "REL((\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<sigma>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>, (\<tau>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<tau>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>)"}  =  @{text "(rel \<kappa>) (REL(\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<tau>\<^isub>1)) \<dots> (REL(\<sigma>\<^isub>n,\<tau>\<^isub>n))"}

  \item @{text "REL((\<sigma>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<sigma>\<^isub>n))\<kappa>\<^isub>1, (\<tau>\<^isub>1,\<dots>,\<tau>\<^isub>m))\<kappa>\<^isub>2)"}  =  @{text "(rel \<kappa>\<^isub>1) (REL(\<rho>\<^isub>1,\<nu>\<^isub>1) \<dots> (REL(\<rho>\<^isub>p,\<nu>\<^isub>p) OOO Eqv_\<kappa>\<^isub>2"} provided @{text "\<eta> \<kappa>\<^isub>2 = (\<alpha>\<^isub>1\<dots>\<alpha>\<^isub>p)\<kappa>\<^isub>1 \<and> \<exists>s. s(\<sigma>s\<kappa>\<^isub>1)=\<rho>s\<kappa>\<^isub>1 \<and> s(\<tau>s\<kappa>\<^isub>2)=\<nu>s\<kappa>\<^isub>2"}

  \end{itemize}

  Again, the last case is novel, so lets look at the example of

  respectfullness for @{term concat}. The statement according to

  the definition above is:

  @{thm [display] concat_rsp[no_vars]}

  \noindent

  By unfolding the definition of relation composition and relation map

  we can see the equivalent statement just using the primitive list

  equivalence relation:

  @{thm [display] concat_rsp_unfolded[of "a" "a'" "b'" "b", no_vars]}

  The statement reads that, for any lists of lists @{term a} and @{term b}

  if there exist intermediate lists of lists @{term "a'"} and @{term "b'"}

  such that each element of @{term a} is in the relation with an appropriate

  element of @{term a'}, @{term a'} is in relation with @{term b'} and each

  element of @{term b'} is in relation with the appropriate element of

  @{term b}.

*}

subsection {* Preservation *}

text {*

  To be able to lift theorems that talk about constants that are not

  lifted but whose type changes when lifting is performed additionally

  preservation theorems are needed.

  To lift theorems that talk about insertion in lists of lifted types

  we need to know that for any quotient type with the abstraction and

  representation functions @{text "Abs"} and @{text Rep} we have:

  @{thm [display] (concl) cons_prs[no_vars]}

  This is not enough to lift theorems that talk about quotient compositions.

  For some constants (for example empty list) it is possible to show a

  general compositional theorem, but for @{term "op #"} it is necessary

  to show that it respects the particular quotient type:

  @{thm [display] insert_preserve2[no_vars]}

*}

subsection {* Composition of Quotient theorems *}

text {*

  Given two quotients, one of which quotients a container, and the

  other quotients the type in the container, we can write the

  composition of those quotients. To compose two quotient theorems

  we compose the relations with relation composition as defined above

  and the abstraction and relation functions are the ones of the sub

  quotients composed with the usual function composition.

  The @{term "Rep"} and @{term "Abs"} functions that we obtain agree

  with the definition of aggregate Abs/Rep functions and the

  relation is the same as the one given by aggregate relations.

  This becomes especially interesting

  when we compose the quotient with itself, as there is no simple

  intermediate step.

  Lets take again the example of @{term concat}. To be able to lift

  theorems that talk about it we provide the composition quotient

  theorems, which then lets us perform the lifting procedure in an

  unchanged way:

  @{thm [display] quotient_compose_list[no_vars]}

*}

section {* Lifting Theorems *}

text {*

  The core of the quotient package takes an original theorem that

  talks about the raw types, and the statement of the theorem that

  it is supposed to produce. This is different from other existing

  quotient packages, where only the raw theorems were necessary.

  We notice that in some cases only some occurrences of the raw

  types need to be lifted. This is for example the case in the

  new Nominal package, where a raw datatype that talks about

  pairs of natural numbers or strings (being lists of characters)

  should not be changed to a quotient datatype with constructors

  taking integers or finite sets of characters. To simplify the

  use of the quotient package we additionally provide an automated

  statement translation mechanism that replaces occurrences of

  types that match given quotients by appropriate lifted types.

  Lifting the theorems is performed in three steps. In the following

  we call these steps \emph{regularization}, \emph{injection} and

  \emph{cleaning} following the names used in Homeier's HOL

  implementation.

  We first define the statement of the regularized theorem based

  on the original theorem and the goal theorem. Then we define

  the statement of the injected theorem, based on the regularized

  theorem and the goal. We then show the 3 proofs, as all three

  can be performed independently from each other.

*}

subsection {* Regularization and Injection statements *}

text {*

  We first define the function @{text REG}, which takes the statements

  of the raw theorem and the lifted theorem (both as terms) and

  returns the statement of the regularized version. The intuition

  behind this function is that it replaces quantifiers and

  abstractions involving raw types by bounded ones, and equalities

  involving raw types are replaced by appropriate aggregate

  relations. It is defined as follows: