|
|
|
|
|
Quellcode-Bibliothek
© Kompilation durch diese Firma
[Weder Korrektheit noch Funktionsfähigkeit der Software werden zugesichert.]
Datei:
interval_bandb.pvs
Sprache: Isabelle
|
|
(* Title: HOL/Examples/Ackermann.thy
Author: Larry Paulson
*)
section \<open>A Tail-Recursive, Stack-Based Ackermann's Function\<close>
theory Ackermann imports Main
begin
text\<open>This theory investigates a stack-based implementation of Ackermann's function.
Let's recall the traditional definition,
as modified by R{\'o}zsa P\'eter and Raphael Robinson.\<close>
fun ack :: "[nat,nat] \ nat" where
"ack 0 n = Suc n"
| "ack (Suc m) 0 = ack m 1"
| "ack (Suc m) (Suc n) = ack m (ack (Suc m) n)"
text\<open>Here is the stack-based version, which uses lists.\<close>
function (domintros) ackloop :: "nat list \ nat" where
"ackloop (n # 0 # l) = ackloop (Suc n # l)"
| "ackloop (0 # Suc m # l) = ackloop (1 # m # l)"
| "ackloop (Suc n # Suc m # l) = ackloop (n # Suc m # m # l)"
| "ackloop [m] = m"
| "ackloop [] = 0"
by pat_completeness auto
text\<open>
The key task is to prove termination. In the first recursive call, the head of the list gets bigger
while the list gets shorter, suggesting that the length of the list should be the primary
termination criterion. But in the third recursive call, the list gets longer. The idea of trying
a multiset-based termination argument is frustrated by the second recursive call when m = 0:
the list elements are simply permuted.
Fortunately, the function definition package allows us to define a function and only later identify its domain of termination.
Instead, it makes all the recursion equations conditional on satisfying
the function's domain predicate. Here we shall eventually be able
to show that the predicate is always satisfied.\<close>
text\<open>@{thm [display] ackloop.domintros[no_vars]}\<close>
declare ackloop.domintros [simp]
text \<open>Termination is trivial if the length of the list is less then two.
The following lemma is the key to proving termination for longer lists.\<close>
lemma "\n l. ackloop_dom (ack m n # l) \ ackloop_dom (n # m # l)"
proof (induction m)
case 0
then show ?case
by auto
next
case (Suc m)
note IH = Suc
have "\l. ackloop_dom (ack (Suc m) n # l) \ ackloop_dom (n # Suc m # l)"
proof (induction n)
case 0
then show ?case
by (simp add: IH)
next
case (Suc n)
then show ?case
by (auto simp: IH)
qed
then show ?case
using Suc.prems by blast
qed
text \<open>The proof above (which actually is unused) can be expressed concisely as follows.\<close>
lemma ackloop_dom_longer:
"ackloop_dom (ack m n # l) \ ackloop_dom (n # m # l)"
by (induction m n arbitrary: l rule: ack.induct) auto
lemma "ackloop_dom (ack m n # l) \ ackloop_dom (n # m # l)"
by (induction m n arbitrary: l rule: ack.induct) auto
text\<open>This function codifies what @{term ackloop} is designed to do.
Proving the two functions equivalent also shows that @{term ackloop} can be used
to compute Ackermann's function.\
fun acklist :: "nat list \ nat" where
"acklist (n#m#l) = acklist (ack m n # l)"
| "acklist [m] = m"
| "acklist [] = 0"
text\<open>The induction rule for @{term acklist} is @{thm [display] acklist.induct[no_vars]}.\<close>
lemma ackloop_dom: "ackloop_dom l"
by (induction l rule: acklist.induct) (auto simp: ackloop_dom_longer)
termination ackloop
by (simp add: ackloop_dom)
text\<open>This result is trivial even by inspection of the function definitions
(which faithfully follow the definition of Ackermann's function).
All that we needed was termination.\<close>
lemma ackloop_acklist: "ackloop l = acklist l"
by (induction l rule: ackloop.induct) auto
theorem ack: "ack m n = ackloop [n,m]"
by (simp add: ackloop_acklist)
end
¤ Dauer der Verarbeitung: 0.28 Sekunden
(vorverarbeitet)
¤
|
schauen Sie vor die Tür
Fenster
Die Firma ist wie angegeben erreichbar.
Die farbliche Syntaxdarstellung ist noch experimentell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
