(* Specification of the following loop back device
g
--------------------
| ------- |
x | | | | y
------|---->| |------| ----->
| z | f | z |
| -->| |--- |
| | | | | |
| | ------- | |
| | | |
| <-------------- |
| |
--------------------
First step: Notation in Agent Network Description Language (ANDL)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
agent f
input channel i1:'b i2: ('b,'c) tc
output channel o1:'c o2: ('b,'c) tc
is
Rf(i1,i2,o1,o2) (left open in the example)
end f
agent g
input channel x:'b
output channel y:'c
is network
(y,z) = f$(x,z)
end network
end g
Remark: the type of the feedback depends at most on the types of the input and
output of g. (No type miracles inside g)
Second step: Translation of ANDL specification to HOLCF Specification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Specification of agent f ist translated to predicate is_f
is_f :: ('b stream * ('b,'c) tc stream ->
'c stream * ('b,'c) tc stream) => bool
is_f f = !i1 i2 o1 o2.
f$(i1,i2) = (o1,o2) --> Rf(i1,i2,o1,o2)
Specification of agent g is translated to predicate is_g which uses
predicate is_net_g
is_net_g :: ('b stream * ('b,'c) tc stream -> 'c stream * ('b,'c) tc stream) =>
'b stream => 'c stream => bool
is_net_g f x y =
? z. (y,z) = f$(x,z) &
!oy hz. (oy,hz) = f$(x,hz) --> z << hz
is_g :: ('b stream -> 'c stream) => bool
is_g g = ? f. is_f f & (!x y. g$x = y --> is_net_g f x y
Third step: (show conservativity)
-----------
Suppose we have a model for the theory TH1 which contains the axiom
? f. is_f f
In this case there is also a model for the theory TH2 that enriches TH1 by
axiom
? g. is_g g
The result is proved by showing that there is a definitional extension
that extends TH1 by a definition of g.
We define:
def_g g =
(? f. is_f f &
g = (LAM x. fst (f$(x,fix$(LAM k. snd (f$(x,k)))))) )
Now we prove:
(? f. is_f f ) --> (? g. is_g g)
using the theorems
loopback_eq) def_g = is_g (real work)
L1) (? f. is_f f ) --> (? g. def_g g) (trivial)
*)
theory Focus_ex
imports "HOLCF-Library.Stream"
begin
typedecl (
'a, ' b) tc
axiomatization where tc_arity:
"OFCLASS(('a::pcpo, 'b::pcpo) tc, pcop_class)"
instance tc :: (pcpo, pcpo) pcpo
by (rule tc_arity)
axiomatization
Rf ::
"('b stream * ('b,'c) tc stream * 'c stream * ('b,'c) tc stream) \ bool"
definition
is_f ::
"('b stream * ('b,'c) tc stream \ 'c stream * ('b,'c) tc stream) \ bool" where
"is_f f \ (\i1 i2 o1 o2. f\(i1, i2) = (o1, o2) \ Rf (i1, i2, o1, o2))"
definition
is_net_g ::
"('b stream * ('b,'c) tc stream \ 'c stream * ('b,'c) tc stream) \
'b stream \ ' c stream
==> bool
" where
"is_net_g f x y \ (\z.
(y, z) = f
⋅ (x,z)
∧
(
∀ oy hz. (oy, hz) = f
⋅ (x, hz)
⟶ z << hz))
"
definition
is_g ::
"('b stream \ 'c stream) \ bool" where
"is_g g \ (\f. is_f f \ (\x y. g\x = y \ is_net_g f x y))"
definition
def_g ::
"('b stream \ 'c stream) => bool" where
"def_g g \ (\f. is_f f \ g = (LAM x. fst (f\(x, fix\(LAM k. snd (f\(x, k)))))))"
(* first some logical trading *)
lemma lemma1:
"is_g g \
(
∃ f. is_f(f)
∧ (
∀ x.(
∃ z. (g
⋅ x,z) = f
⋅ (x,z)
∧ (
∀ w y. (y, w) = f
⋅ (x, w)
⟶ z << w))))
"
apply (simp add: is_g_def is_net_g_def)
apply fast
done
lemma lemma2:
"(\f. is_f f \ (\x. (\z. (g\x, z) = f\(x, z) \ (\w y. (y, w) = f\(x,w) \ z << w)))) \
(
∃ f. is_f f
∧ (
∀ x.
∃ z.
g
⋅ x = fst (f
⋅ (x, z))
∧
z = snd (f
⋅ (x, z))
∧
(
∀ w y. (y, w) = f
⋅ (x, w)
⟶ z << w)))
"
apply (rule iffI)
apply (erule exE)
apply (rule_tac x =
"f" in exI)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (erule conjI)
apply (intro strip)
apply (erule allE)
apply (erule exE)
apply (rule_tac x =
"z" in exI)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (rule conjI)
apply (rule_tac [2] conjI)
prefer 3
apply (assumption)
apply (drule sym)
apply (simp)
apply (drule sym)
apply (simp)
apply (erule exE)
apply (rule_tac x =
"f" in exI)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (erule conjI)
apply (intro strip)
apply (erule allE)
apply (erule exE)
apply (rule_tac x =
"z" in exI)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (rule conjI)
prefer 2
apply (assumption)
apply (rule prod_eqI)
apply simp
apply simp
done
lemma lemma3:
"def_g g \ is_g g"
apply (tactic
‹ simp_tac (put_simpset HOL_ss
🍋
addsimps [@{
thm def_g_def}, @{
thm lemma1}, @{
thm lemma2}]) 1
› )
apply (rule impI)
apply (erule exE)
apply (rule_tac x =
"f" in exI)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (erule conjI)
apply (intro strip)
apply (rule_tac x =
"fix\(LAM k. snd (f\(x, k)))" in exI)
apply (rule conjI)
apply (simp)
apply (rule prod_eqI, simp, simp)
apply (rule trans)
apply (rule fix_eq)
apply (simp (no_asm))
apply (intro strip)
apply (rule fix_least)
apply (simp (no_asm))
apply (erule exE)
apply (drule sym)
back
apply simp
done
lemma lemma4:
"is_g g \ def_g g"
apply (tactic
‹ simp_tac (put_simpset HOL_ss
🍋
delsimps (@{thms HOL.ex_simps} @ @{thms HOL.all_simps})
addsimps [@{
thm lemma1}, @{
thm lemma2}, @{
thm def_g_def}]) 1
› )
apply (rule impI)
apply (erule exE)
apply (rule_tac x =
"f" in exI)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (erule conjI)
apply (rule cfun_eqI)
apply (erule_tac x =
"x" in allE)
apply (erule exE)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (subgoal_tac
"fix\(LAM k. snd (f\(x, k))) = z" )
apply simp
apply (subgoal_tac
"\w y. f\(x, w) = (y, w) \ z << w" )
apply (rule fix_eqI)
apply simp
apply (subgoal_tac
"f\(x, za) = (fst (f\(x, za)), za)" )
apply fast
apply (rule prod_eqI, simp, simp)
apply (intro strip)
apply (erule allE)+
apply (erule mp)
apply (erule sym)
done
(* now we assemble the result *)
lemma loopback_eq:
"def_g = is_g"
apply (rule ext)
apply (rule iffI)
apply (erule lemma3 [
THEN mp])
apply (erule lemma4 [
THEN mp])
done
lemma L2:
"(\f. is_f (f::'b stream * ('b,'c) tc stream \ 'c stream * ('b,'c) tc stream)) \
(
∃ g. def_g (g::
'b stream \ ' c stream))
"
apply (simp add: def_g_def)
done
theorem conservative_loopback:
"(\f. is_f (f::'b stream * ('b,'c) tc stream \ 'c stream * ('b,'c) tc stream)) \
(
∃ g. is_g (g::
'b stream \ ' c stream))
"
apply (rule loopback_eq [
THEN subst])
apply (rule L2)
done
end
Messung V0.5 C=94 H=95 G=94
¤ Dauer der Verarbeitung: 0.13 Sekunden
(vorverarbeitet)
¤
*© Formatika GbR, Deutschland