--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/Tutorial/Tutorial3.thy Fri Jan 21 22:02:34 2011 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+theory Tutorial3
+imports Lambda
+begin
+
+section {* Formalising Barendregt's Proof of the Substitution Lemma *}
+
+text {*
+ Barendregt's proof needs in the variable case a case distinction.
+ One way to do this in Isar is to use blocks. A block is some sequent
+ or reasoning steps enclosed in curly braces
+
+ { \<dots>
+
+ have "statement"
+ }
+
+ Such a block can contain local assumptions like
+
+ { assume "A"
+ assume "B"
+ \<dots>
+ have "C" by \<dots>
+ }
+
+ Where "C" is the last have-statement in this block. The behaviour
+ of such a block to the 'outside' is the implication
+
+ \<lbrakk>A; B\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> "C"
+
+ Now if we want to prove a property "smth" using the case-distinctions
+ P1, P2 and P3 then we can use the following reasoning:
+
+ { assume "P1"
+ \<dots>
+ have "smth"
+ }
+ moreover
+ { assume "P2"
+ \<dots>
+ have "smth"
+ }
+ moreover
+ { assume "P3"
+ \<dots>
+ have "smth"
+ }
+ ultimately have "smth" by blast
+
+ The blocks establish the implications
+
+ P1 \<Longrightarrow> smth
+ P2 \<Longrightarrow> smth
+ P3 \<Longrightarrow> smth
+
+ If we know that P1, P2 and P3 cover all the cases, that is P1 \<or> P2 \<or> P3 is
+ true, then we have 'ultimately' established the property "smth"
+
+*}
+
+section {* EXERCISE 7 *}
+
+text {*
+ Fill in the cases 1.2 and 1.3 and the equational reasoning
+ in the lambda-case.
+*}
+
+lemma forget:
+ shows "atom x \<sharp> t \<Longrightarrow> t[x ::= s] = t"
+by (nominal_induct t avoiding: x s rule: lam.strong_induct)
+ (auto simp add: lam.fresh fresh_at_base)
+
+lemma fresh_fact:
+ assumes a: "atom z \<sharp> s"
+ and b: "z = y \<or> atom z \<sharp> t"
+ shows "atom z \<sharp> t[y ::= s]"
+using a b
+by (nominal_induct t avoiding: z y s rule: lam.strong_induct)
+ (auto simp add: lam.fresh fresh_at_base)
+
+
+lemma
+ assumes a: "x \<noteq> y"
+ and b: "atom x \<sharp> L"
+ shows "M[x::=N][y::=L] = M[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]"
+using a b
+proof (nominal_induct M avoiding: x y N L rule: lam.strong_induct)
+ case (Var z)
+ have a1: "x \<noteq> y" by fact
+ have a2: "atom x \<sharp> L" by fact
+ show "Var z[x::=N][y::=L] = Var z[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" (is "?LHS = ?RHS")
+ proof -
+ { -- {* Case 1.1 *}
+ assume c1: "z = x"
+ have "(1)": "?LHS = N[y::=L]" using c1 by simp
+ have "(2)": "?RHS = N[y::=L]" using c1 a1 by simp
+ have "?LHS = ?RHS" using "(1)" "(2)" by simp
+ }
+ moreover
+ { -- {* Case 1.2 *}
+ assume c2: "z = y" "z \<noteq> x"
+
+ have "?LHS = ?RHS" sorry
+ }
+ moreover
+ { -- {* Case 1.3 *}
+ assume c3: "z \<noteq> x" "z \<noteq> y"
+
+ have "?LHS = ?RHS" sorry
+ }
+ ultimately show "?LHS = ?RHS" by blast
+ qed
+next
+ case (Lam z M1) -- {* case 2: lambdas *}
+ have ih: "\<lbrakk>x \<noteq> y; atom x \<sharp> L\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> M1[x::=N][y::=L] = M1[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" by fact
+ have a1: "x \<noteq> y" by fact
+ have a2: "atom x \<sharp> L" by fact
+ have fs: "atom z \<sharp> x" "atom z \<sharp> y" "atom z \<sharp> N" "atom z \<sharp> L" by fact+
+ then have b: "atom z \<sharp> N[y::=L]" by (simp add: fresh_fact)
+ show "(Lam [z].M1)[x::=N][y::=L] = (Lam [z].M1)[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" (is "?LHS=?RHS")
+ proof -
+ have "?LHS = \<dots>" sorry
+
+ also have "\<dots> = ?RHS" sorry
+ finally show "?LHS = ?RHS" by simp
+ qed
+next
+ case (App M1 M2) -- {* case 3: applications *}
+ then show "(App M1 M2)[x::=N][y::=L] = (App M1 M2)[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" by simp
+qed
+
+text {*
+ Again the strong induction principle enables Isabelle to find
+ the proof of the substitution lemma automatically.
+*}
+
+lemma substitution_lemma_version:
+ assumes asm: "x \<noteq> y" "atom x \<sharp> L"
+ shows "M[x::=N][y::=L] = M[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]"
+ using asm
+by (nominal_induct M avoiding: x y N L rule: lam.strong_induct)
+ (auto simp add: fresh_fact forget)
+
+
+end