(*<*)

theory Paper

imports "../Closures2" "../Attic/Prefix_subtract" 

begin

lemma nullable_iff:

  shows "nullable r \<longleftrightarrow> [] \<in> lang r"

by (induct r) (auto simp add: conc_def split: if_splits)

lemma Deriv_deriv:

  shows "Deriv c (lang r) = lang (deriv c r)"

by (induct r) (simp_all add: nullable_iff)

lemma Derivs_derivs:

  shows "Derivs s (lang r) = lang (derivs s r)"

by (induct s arbitrary: r) (simp_all add: Deriv_deriv)

declare [[show_question_marks = false]]

consts

 REL :: "(string \<times> string) set"

 UPLUS :: "'a set \<Rightarrow> 'a set \<Rightarrow> (nat \<times> 'a) set"

abbreviation

  "EClass x R \<equiv> R `` {x}"

abbreviation 

  "Append_rexp2 r_itm r \<equiv> Append_rexp r r_itm"

abbreviation

  "pow" (infixl "\<up>" 100)

where

  "A \<up> n \<equiv> A ^^ n"

syntax (latex output)

  "_Collect" :: "pttrn => bool => 'a set"              ("(1{_ | _})")

  "_CollectIn" :: "pttrn => 'a set => bool => 'a set"   ("(1{_ \<in> _ | _})")

translations

  "_Collect p P"      <= "{p. P}"

  "_Collect p P"      <= "{p|xs. P}"

  "_CollectIn p A P"  <= "{p : A. P}"

syntax (latex output)

  "_UNION_le"   :: "'a \<Rightarrow> 'a => 'b set => 'b set"       ("(3\<Union>(00\<^bsub>_ \<le> _\<^esub>)/ _)" [0, 0, 10] 10)

abbreviation "ZERO \<equiv> Zero"

abbreviation "ONE \<equiv> One"

abbreviation "ATOM \<equiv> Atom"

abbreviation "PLUS \<equiv> Plus"

abbreviation "TIMES \<equiv> Times"

abbreviation "TIMESS \<equiv> Timess"

abbreviation "STAR \<equiv> Star"

abbreviation "ALLS \<equiv> Star Allreg"

definition

  Delta :: "'a lang \<Rightarrow> 'a lang"

where

  "Delta A = (if [] \<in> A then {[]} else {})"

notation (latex output)

  str_eq ("\<approx>\<^bsub>_\<^esub>") and

  str_eq_applied ("_ \<approx>\<^bsub>_\<^esub> _") and

  conc (infixr "\<cdot>" 100) and

  star ("_\<^bsup>\<star>\<^esup>" [101] 200) and

  pow ("_\<^bsup>_\<^esup>" [100, 100] 100) and

  Suc ("_+1" [100] 100) and

  quotient ("_ \<^raw:\ensuremath{\!\sslash\!}> _" [90, 90] 90) and

  REL ("\<approx>") and

  UPLUS ("_ \<^raw:\ensuremath{\uplus}> _" [90, 90] 90) and

  lang ("\<^raw:\ensuremath{\cal{L}}>" 101) and

  lang ("\<^raw:\ensuremath{\cal{L}}>'(_')" [0] 101) and

  lang_trm ("\<^raw:\ensuremath{\cal{L}}>'(_')" [0] 101) and

  Lam ("\<lambda>'(_')" [100] 100) and 

  Trn ("'(_, _')" [100, 100] 100) and 

  EClass ("\<lbrakk>_\<rbrakk>\<^bsub>_\<^esub>" [100, 100] 100) and

  transition ("_ \<^raw:\ensuremath{\stackrel{\text{>_\<^raw:}}{\Longmapsto}}> _" [100, 100, 100] 100) and

  Setalt ("\<^raw:\ensuremath{\bigplus}>_" [1000] 999) and

  Append_rexp2 ("_ \<^raw:\ensuremath{\triangleleft}> _" [100, 100] 100) and

  Append_rexp_rhs ("_ \<^raw:\ensuremath{\triangleleft}> _" [100, 100] 50) and

  uminus ("\<^raw:\ensuremath{\overline{\isa{>_\<^raw:}}}>" [100] 100) and

  tag_Plus ("+tag _ _" [100, 100] 100) and

  tag_Plus ("+tag _ _ _" [100, 100, 100] 100) and

  tag_Times ("\<times>tag _ _" [100, 100] 100) and

  tag_Times ("\<times>tag _ _ _" [100, 100, 100] 100) and

  tag_Star ("\<star>tag _" [100] 100) and

  tag_Star ("\<star>tag _ _" [100, 100] 100) and

  tag_eq ("\<^raw:$\threesim$>\<^bsub>_\<^esub>" [100] 100) and

  Delta ("\<Delta>'(_')") and

  nullable ("\<delta>'(_')") and

  Cons ("_ :: _" [100, 100] 100) and

  Rev ("Rev _" [1000] 100) and

  Deriv ("Der _ _" [1000, 1000] 100) and

  Derivs ("Ders") and

  ONE ("ONE" 999) and

  ZERO ("ZERO" 999) and

  pderivs_lang ("pdersl") and

  UNIV1 ("UNIV\<^sup>+") and

  Deriv_lang ("Dersl") and

  Derivss ("Derss") and

  deriv ("der") and

  derivs ("ders") and

  pderiv ("pder") and

  pderivs ("pders") and

  pderivs_set ("pderss") and

  SUBSEQ ("Sub") and

  SUPSEQ ("Sup") and

  UP ("'(_')\<up>") and

  ALLS ("ALL")

lemmas Deriv_simps = Deriv_empty Deriv_epsilon Deriv_char Deriv_union

definition

  Der :: "'a \<Rightarrow> 'a lang \<Rightarrow> 'a lang"

where

  "Der c A \<equiv> {s. [c] @ s \<in> A}"

definition

  Ders :: "'a list \<Rightarrow> 'a lang \<Rightarrow> 'a lang"

where

  "Ders s A \<equiv> {s'. s @ s' \<in> A}"

lemma meta_eq_app:

  shows "f \<equiv> \<lambda>x. g x \<Longrightarrow> f x \<equiv> g x"

  by auto

lemma str_eq_def':

  shows "x \<approx>A y \<equiv> (\<forall>z. x @ z \<in> A \<longleftrightarrow> y @ z \<in> A)"

unfolding str_eq_def by simp

lemma conc_def':

  "A \<cdot> B = {s\<^sub>1 @ s\<^sub>2 | s\<^sub>1 s\<^sub>2. s\<^sub>1 \<in> A \<and> s\<^sub>2 \<in> B}"

unfolding conc_def by simp

lemma conc_Union_left: 

  shows "B \<cdot> (\<Union>n. A \<up> n) = (\<Union>n. B \<cdot> (A \<up> n))"

unfolding conc_def by auto

lemma test:

  assumes X_in_eqs: "(X, rhs) \<in> Init (UNIV // \<approx>A)"

  shows "X = \<Union> (lang_trm `  rhs)"

using assms l_eq_r_in_eqs by (simp)

abbreviation

  notprec ("_ \<^raw:\mbox{$\not\preceq$}>_")

where

 "notprec x y \<equiv> \<not>(x \<preceq> y)"

abbreviation

  minimal_syn ("min\<^bsub>_\<^esub> _")

where

  "minimal_syn A x \<equiv> minimal x A"   

(* THEOREMS *)

notation (Rule output)

  "==>"  ("\<^raw:\mbox{}\inferrule{\mbox{>_\<^raw:}}>\<^raw:{\mbox{>_\<^raw:}}>")

syntax (Rule output)

  "_bigimpl" :: "asms \<Rightarrow> prop \<Rightarrow> prop"

  ("\<^raw:\mbox{}\inferrule{>_\<^raw:}>\<^raw:{\mbox{>_\<^raw:}}>")

  "_asms" :: "prop \<Rightarrow> asms \<Rightarrow> asms" 

  ("\<^raw:\mbox{>_\<^raw:}\\>/ _")

  "_asm" :: "prop \<Rightarrow> asms" ("\<^raw:\mbox{>_\<^raw:}>")

notation (Axiom output)

  "Trueprop"  ("\<^raw:\mbox{}\inferrule{\mbox{}}{\mbox{>_\<^raw:}}>")

notation (IfThen output)

  "==>"  ("\<^raw:{\normalsize{}>If\<^raw:\,}> _/ \<^raw:{\normalsize \,>then\<^raw:\,}>/ _.")

syntax (IfThen output)

  "_bigimpl" :: "asms \<Rightarrow> prop \<Rightarrow> prop"

  ("\<^raw:{\normalsize{}>If\<^raw:\,}> _ /\<^raw:{\normalsize \,>then\<^raw:\,}>/ _.")

  "_asms" :: "prop \<Rightarrow> asms \<Rightarrow> asms" ("\<^raw:\mbox{>_\<^raw:}> /\<^raw:{\normalsize \,>and\<^raw:\,}>/ _")

  "_asm" :: "prop \<Rightarrow> asms" ("\<^raw:\mbox{>_\<^raw:}>")

notation (IfThenNoBox output)

  "==>"  ("\<^raw:{\normalsize{}>If\<^raw:\,}> _/ \<^raw:{\normalsize \,>then\<^raw:\,}>/ _.")

syntax (IfThenNoBox output)

  "_bigimpl" :: "asms \<Rightarrow> prop \<Rightarrow> prop"

  ("\<^raw:{\normalsize{}>If\<^raw:\,}> _ /\<^raw:{\normalsize \,>then\<^raw:\,}>/ _.")

  "_asms" :: "prop \<Rightarrow> asms \<Rightarrow> asms" ("_ /\<^raw:{\normalsize \,>and\<^raw:\,}>/ _")

  "_asm" :: "prop \<Rightarrow> asms" ("_")

lemma pow_length:

  assumes a: "[] \<notin> A"

  and     b: "s \<in> A \<up> Suc n"

  shows "n < length s"

using b

proof (induct n arbitrary: s)

  case 0

  have "s \<in> A \<up> Suc 0" by fact

  with a have "s \<noteq> []" by auto

  then show "0 < length s" by auto

next

  case (Suc n)

  have ih: "\<And>s. s \<in> A \<up> Suc n \<Longrightarrow> n < length s" by fact

  have "s \<in> A \<up> Suc (Suc n)" by fact

  then obtain s1 s2 where eq: "s = s1 @ s2" and *: "s1 \<in> A" and **: "s2 \<in> A \<up> Suc n"

    by (auto simp add: Seq_def)

  from ih ** have "n < length s2" by simp

  moreover have "0 < length s1" using * a by auto

  ultimately show "Suc n < length s" unfolding eq 

    by (simp only: length_append)

qed

(*>*)

section {* Introduction *}

text {*

  \noindent

  Regular languages are an important and well-understood subject in Computer

  Science, with many beautiful theorems and many useful algorithms. There is a

  wide range of textbooks on this subject, many of which are aimed at students

  and contain very detailed `pencil-and-paper' proofs 

  (e.g.~the textbooks by \citeN{HopcroftUllman69} and by \citeN{Kozen97}). 

  It seems natural to exercise theorem provers by

  formalising the theorems and by verifying formally the algorithms.  

  A popular choice for a theorem prover would be one based on Higher-Order

  Logic (HOL), for example HOL4, HOLlight or Isabelle/HOL. For the development

  presented in this paper we will use the Isabelle/HOL system. HOL is a predicate calculus

  that allows quantification over predicate variables. Its type system is

  based on the Simple Theory of Types by \citeN{Church40}.  Although many

  mathematical concepts can be conveniently expressed in HOL, there are some

  limitations that hurt when attempting a simple-minded formalisation

  of regular languages in it. 

  The typical approach to

  regular languages, taken for example by \citeN{HopcroftUllman69}

  and by \citeN{Kozen97},  is to introduce finite deterministic automata and then

  define most notions in terms of them.  For example, a regular language is

  normally defined as:

  \begin{definition}\label{baddef}

  A language @{text A} is \emph{regular}, provided there is a 

  finite deterministic automaton that recognises all strings of @{text "A"}.

  \end{definition}

  \noindent  

  This approach has many benefits. Among them is the fact that it is easy to

  convince oneself that regular languages are closed under complementation:

  one just has to exchange the accepting and non-accepting states in the

  corresponding automaton to obtain an automaton for the complement language.

  The problem, however, lies with formalising such reasoning in a 

  theorem prover. Automata are built up from states and transitions that are 

  commonly represented as graphs, matrices or functions, none of which, unfortunately, 

  can be defined as an inductive datatype.

  In case of graphs and matrices, this means we have to build our own

  reasoning infrastructure for them, as neither Isabelle/HOL nor HOL4 nor

  HOLlight support them with libraries. Also, reasoning about graphs and

  matrices can be a hassle in theorem provers, because

  we have to be able to combine automata.  Consider for

  example the operation of sequencing two automata, say $A_1$ and $A_2$, by

  connecting the accepting states of $A_1$ to the initial state of $A_2$:

  \begin{center}

  \begin{tabular}{ccc}

  \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]

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

  \draw[rounded corners=1mm, very thick] (-1.0,-0.3) rectangle (-0.2,0.3);

  \draw[rounded corners=1mm, very thick] ( 0.2,-0.3) rectangle ( 1.0,0.3);

  \node (A) at (-1.0,0.0) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (B) at ( 0.2,0.0) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (C) at (-0.2, 0.13) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (D) at (-0.2,-0.13) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (E) at (1.0, 0.2) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (F) at (1.0,-0.0) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (G) at (1.0,-0.2) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \draw (-0.6,0.0) node {\small$A_1$};

  \draw ( 0.6,0.0) node {\small$A_2$};

  \end{tikzpicture}

  & 

  \raisebox{2.1mm}{\bf\Large$\;\;\;\Rightarrow\,\;\;$}

  &

  \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]

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

  \draw[rounded corners=1mm, very thick] (-1.0,-0.3) rectangle (-0.2,0.3);

  \draw[rounded corners=1mm, very thick] ( 0.2,-0.3) rectangle ( 1.0,0.3);

  \node (A) at (-1.0,0.0) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (B) at ( 0.2,0.0) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (C) at (-0.2, 0.13) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (D) at (-0.2,-0.13) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (E) at (1.0, 0.2) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (F) at (1.0,-0.0) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \node (G) at (1.0,-0.2) [circle, very thick, draw, fill=white, inner sep=0.4mm] {};

  \draw (C) to [very thick, bend left=45] (B);

  \draw (D) to [very thick, bend right=45] (B);

  \draw (-0.6,0.0) node {\small$A_1$};

  \draw ( 0.6,0.0) node {\small$A_2$};

  \end{tikzpicture}

  \end{tabular}

  \end{center}

  \noindent

  On `paper' we can define the corresponding 

  graph in terms of the disjoint 

  union of the state nodes. Unfortunately in HOL, the standard definition for disjoint 

  union, namely 

  %

  \begin{equation}\label{disjointunion}

  @{text "A\<^sub>1 \<uplus> A\<^sub>2 \<equiv> {(1, x) | x \<in> A\<^sub>1} \<union> {(2, y) | y \<in> A\<^sub>2}"}

  \end{equation}

  \noindent

  changes the type---the disjoint union is not a set, but a set of

  pairs. Using this definition for disjoint union means we do not have

  a single type for the states of automata. As a result we will not be

  able to define a regular language as one for which there exists an

  automaton that recognises all its strings

  (Definition~\ref{baddef}). This is because we cannot make a

  definition in HOL that is only polymorphic in the state type, but

  not in the predicate for regularity; and there is no type

  quantification available in HOL.\footnote{Slind already pointed out

  this problem in an email to the HOL4 mailing list on 21st April

  An alternative, which provides us with a single type for states of automata,

  is to give every state node an identity, for example a natural number, and

  then be careful to rename these identities apart whenever connecting two

  automata. This results in clunky proofs establishing that properties are

  invariant under renaming. Similarly, connecting two automata represented as

  matrices results in messy constructions, which are not pleasant to

  formally reason about. \citeN[Page 67]{Braibant12}, for example, writes that there are no 

  problems with reasoning about matrices, but that there is an

  ``intrinsic difficulty of working with rectangular matrices'' in some 

  parts of his formalisation of formal languages in Coq.

  Functions are much better supported in Isabelle/HOL, but they still lead to

  similar problems as with graphs.  Composing, for example, two

  non-deterministic automata in parallel requires also the formalisation of

  disjoint unions. \citeN{Nipkow98} dismisses for this the option of

  using identities, because it leads according to him to ``messy

  proofs''. Since he does not need to define what regular languages are,

  Nipkow opts for a variant of \eqref{disjointunion} using bit lists, but

  writes\smallskip

  \begin{quote}

  \it%

  \begin{tabular}{@ {}l@ {}p{0.88\textwidth}@ {}}

  `` & All lemmas appear obvious given a picture of the composition of automata\ldots

       Yet their proofs require a painful amount of detail.''

  \end{tabular}

  \end{quote}\smallskip

  \noindent

  and\smallskip

  \begin{quote}

  \it%

  \begin{tabular}{@ {}l@ {}p{0.88\textwidth}@ {}}

  `` & If the reader finds the above treatment in terms of bit lists revoltingly

       concrete, I cannot disagree. A more abstract approach is clearly desirable.''

  \end{tabular}

  \end{quote}\smallskip

  %\noindent

  %Moreover, it is not so clear how to conveniently impose a finiteness

  %condition upon functions in order to represent \emph{finite} automata. The

  %best is probably to resort to more advanced reasoning frameworks, such as

  %\emph{locales} or \emph{type classes}, which are \emph{not} available in all

  %HOL-based theorem provers.

  Because of these problems to do with representing automata, formalising 

  automata theory is surprisingly not as easy as one might think, despite the 

  sometimes very detailed, but informal, textbook proofs. \citeN{LammichTuerk12}

  formalised Hopcroft's algorithm using an automata library of 14 kloc in

  Isabelle/HOL. There they use matrices for representing automata. 

  Functions are used by \citeN{Nipkow98}, who establishes

  the link between regular expressions and automata in the context of

  lexing. \citeN{BerghoferReiter09} use functions as well for formalising automata

  working over bit strings in the context of Presburger arithmetic.  

  A larger formalisation of automata theory, including the Myhill-Nerode theorem, 

  was carried out in Nuprl by \citeN{Constable00} which also uses functions.

  Other large formalisations of automata theory in Coq are by 

  \citeN{Filliatre97} who essentially uses graphs and by \citeN{Almeidaetal10}

  and \citeN{Braibant12}, who both use matrices. Many of these works,

  like \citeN{Nipkow98} or \citeN{Braibant12}, mention intrinsic problems with 

  their representation of

  automata which made them `fight' their respective  theorem prover.

  %Also, one might consider automata as just convenient `vehicles' for

  %establishing properties about regular languages.  However, paper proofs

  %about automata often involve subtle side-conditions which are easily

  %overlooked, but which make formal reasoning rather painful. For example

  %Kozen's proof of the Myhill-Nerode Theorem requires that automata do not

  %have inaccessible states \cite{Kozen97}. Another subtle side-condition is

  %completeness of automata, that is automata need to have total transition

  %functions and at most one `sink' state from which there is no connection to

  %a final state (Brzozowski mentions this side-condition in the context of

  %state complexity of automata \cite{Brzozowski10}, but it is also needed

  %in the usual construction of the complement automaton). Such side-conditions mean

  %that if we define a regular language as one for which there exists \emph{a}

  %finite automaton that recognises all its strings (see

  %Definition~\ref{baddef}), then we need a lemma which ensures that another

  %equivalent one can be found satisfying the side-condition, and also need to

  %make sure our operations on automata preserve them. Unfortunately, such

  %`little' and `obvious' lemmas make formalisations of automata theory 

  %hair-pulling experiences.

  In this paper, we will not attempt to formalise automata theory in

  Isabelle/HOL nor will we attempt to formalise automata proofs from the

  literature, but take a different approach to regular languages than is

  usually taken. Instead of defining a regular language as one where there

  exists an automaton that recognises all its strings, we define a

  regular language as:

  \begin{definition}\label{regular}

  A language @{text A} is \emph{regular}, provided there is a regular expression 

  that matches all strings of @{text "A"}.

  \end{definition}

  \noindent

  We then want to `forget' automata completely and see how far we come

  with formalising results from regular language theory by only using regular 

  expressions.  The reason 

  is that regular expressions, unlike graphs, matrices and

  functions, can be defined as an inductive datatype and a reasoning

  infrastructure for them (like induction and recursion) comes for

  free in HOL. 

  While our choice of using regular expressions is motivated by

  shortcomings in theorem provers, the question whether formal

  language theory can be done without automata crops up also in

  non-theorem prover contexts. For example, Gasarch asked in the

  Computational Complexity blog by \citeN{GasarchBlog} whether the

  complementation of regular-expression languages can be proved

  without using automata. He concluded

  \begin{quote}

  ``{\it \ldots it can't be done}''

  \end{quote} 

  \noindent

  and even pondered

  \begin{quote}

  ``{\it \ldots [b]ut is there a rigorous way to even state that?}'' 

  \end{quote} 

  %Moreover, no side-conditions will be needed for regular expressions,

  %like we need for automata. 

  The convenience of regular expressions has

  recently been exploited in HOL4 with a formalisation of regular expression

  matching based on derivatives by \citeN{OwensSlind08}, and with an equivalence

  checker for regular expressions in Isabelle/HOL by \citeN{KraussNipkow11}

  and in Matita by \citeN{Asperti12} and in Coq by \citeN{CoquandSiles12}.  The