(* Title: HOL/ex/Set_Theory.thy Author: Tobias Nipkow and Lawrence C Paulson Copyright 1991 University of Cambridge
*)
section \<open>Set Theory examples: Cantor's Theorem, Schröder-Bernstein Theorem, etc.\<close>
theory Set_Theory imports Main begin
text\<open>
These two are cited in Benzmueller and Kohlhase's system description
of LEO, CADE-15, 1998 (pages 139-143) as theorems LEO could not
prove. \<close>
lemma"(X = Y \ Z) =
(Y \<subseteq> X \<and> Z \<subseteq> X \<and> (\<forall>V. Y \<subseteq> V \<and> Z \<subseteq> V \<longrightarrow> X \<subseteq> V))" by blast
lemma"(X = Y \ Z) =
(X \<subseteq> Y \<and> X \<subseteq> Z \<and> (\<forall>V. V \<subseteq> Y \<and> V \<subseteq> Z \<longrightarrow> V \<subseteq> X))" by blast
text\<open>
Trivial example of term synthesis: apparently hard for some provers! \<close>
schematic_goal "a \ b \ a \ ?X \ b \ ?X" by blast
subsection \<open>Examples for the \<open>blast\<close> paper\<close>
lemma"(\x \ C. f x \ g x) = \(f ` C) \ \(g ` C)" \<comment> \<open>Union-image, called \<open>Un_Union_image\<close> in Main HOL\<close> by blast
lemma"(\x \ C. f x \ g x) = \(f ` C) \ \(g ` C)" \<comment> \<open>Inter-image, called \<open>Int_Inter_image\<close> in Main HOL\<close> by blast
lemma singleton_example_1: "\S::'a set set. \x \ S. \y \ S. x \ y \ \z. S \ {z}" by blast
lemma singleton_example_2: "\x \ S. \S \ x \ \z. S \ {z}" \<comment> \<open>Variant of the problem above.\<close> by blast
lemma"\!x. f (g x) = x \ \!y. g (f y) = y" \<comment> \<open>A unique fixpoint theorem --- \<open>fast\<close>/\<open>best\<close>/\<open>meson\<close> all fail.\<close> by metis
subsection \<open>Cantor's Theorem: There is no surjection from a set to its powerset\<close>
lemma cantor1: "\ (\f:: 'a \ 'a set. \S. \x. f x = S)" \<comment> \<open>Requires best-first search because it is undirectional.\<close> by best
schematic_goal "\f:: 'a \ 'a set. \x. f x \ ?S f" \<comment> \<open>This form displays the diagonal term.\<close> by best
schematic_goal "?S \ range (f :: 'a \ 'a set)" \<comment> \<open>This form exploits the set constructs.\<close> by (rule notI, erule rangeE, best)
schematic_goal "?S \ range (f :: 'a \ 'a set)" \<comment> \<open>Or just this!\<close> by best
lemma decomposition: obtains X where"X = - (g ` (- (f ` X)))" using lfp_unfold [OF monoI, of "\X. - g ` (- f ` X)"] by blast
theorem Schroeder_Bernstein: fixes f :: "'a \ 'b" and g :: "'b \ 'a" assumes"inj f""inj g" obtains h:: "'a \ 'b" where "inj h" "surj h" proof (rule decomposition) fix X assume X: "X = - (g ` (- (f ` X)))" let ?h = "\z. if z \ X then f z else inv g z" show thesis proof have"inj_on (inv g) (-X)" by (metis X \<open>inj g\<close> bij_betw_def double_complement inj_imp_bij_betw_inv) with\<open>inj f\<close> show "inj ?h" unfolding inj_on_def by (metis Compl_iff X \<open>inj g\<close> imageI image_inv_f_f) show"surj ?h" using\<open>inj g\<close> X image_iff surj_def by fastforce qed qed
subsection \<open>A simple party theorem\<close>
text\<open>\emph{At any party there are two people who know the same
number of people}. Provided the party consists of at least two people and the knows relation is symmetric. Knowing yourself does not count
--- otherwise knows needs to be reflexive. (From Freek Wiedijk's talk
at TPHOLs 2007.)\<close>
lemma equal_number_of_acquaintances: assumes"Domain R <= A"and"sym R"and"card A \ 2" shows"\ inj_on (%a. card(R `` {a} - {a})) A" proof - let ?N = "%a. card(R `` {a} - {a})" let ?n = "card A" have"finite A"using\<open>card A \<ge> 2\<close> by(auto intro:ccontr) have 0: "R `` A <= A"using\<open>sym R\<close> \<open>Domain R <= A\<close> unfolding Domain_unfold sym_def by blast have h: "\a\A. R `` {a} <= A" using 0 by blast hence 1: "\a\A. finite(R `` {a})" using \finite A\ by(blast intro: finite_subset) have sub: "?N ` A <= {0.. proof - have"\a\A. R `` {a} - {a} < A" using h by blast thus ?thesis using psubset_card_mono[OF \<open>finite A\<close>] by auto qed show"~ inj_on ?N A" (is"~ ?I") proof assume ?I hence"?n = card(?N ` A)"by(rule card_image[symmetric]) with sub \<open>finite A\<close> have 2[simp]: "?N ` A = {0..<?n}" using subset_card_intvl_is_intvl[of _ 0] by(auto) have"0 \ ?N ` A" and "?n - 1 \ ?N ` A" using \card A \ 2\ by simp+ thenobtain a b where ab: "a\A" "b\A" and Na: "?N a = 0" and Nb: "?N b = ?n - 1" by (auto simp del: 2) have"a \ b" using Na Nb \card A \ 2\ by auto have"R `` {a} - {a} = {}"by (metis 1 Na ab card_eq_0_iff finite_Diff) hence"b \ R `` {a}" using \a\b\ by blast hence"a \ R `` {b}" by (metis Image_singleton_iff assms(2) sym_def) hence 3: "R `` {b} - {b} <= A - {a,b}"using 0 ab by blast have 4: "finite (A - {a,b})"using\<open>finite A\<close> by simp have"?N b <= ?n - 2"using ab \<open>a\<noteq>b\<close> \<open>finite A\<close> card_mono[OF 4 3] by simp thenshow False using Nb \<open>card A \<ge> 2\<close> by arith qed qed
text\<open> From W. W. Bledsoe and Guohui Feng, SET-VAR. JAR 11 (3), 1993, pages
293-314.
Isabelle can prove the easy examples without any special mechanisms,
but it can't prove the hard ones. \<close>
lemma"\A. (\x \ A. x \ (0::int))" \<comment> \<open>Example 1, page 295.\<close> by force
lemma"D \ F \ \G. \A \ G. \B \ F. A \ B" \<comment> \<open>Example 2.\<close> by force
lemma"P a \ \A. (\x \ A. P x) \ (\y. y \ A)" \<comment> \<open>Example 3.\<close> by force
lemma"a < b \ b < (c::int) \ \A. a \ A \ b \ A \ c \ A" \<comment> \<open>Example 4.\<close> by auto \<comment> \<open>slow\<close>
lemma"P (f b) \ \s A. (\x \ A. P x) \ f s \ A" \<comment> \<open>Example 5, page 298.\<close> by force
lemma"P (f b) \ \s A. (\x \ A. P x) \ f s \ A" \<comment> \<open>Example 6.\<close> by force
lemma"\A. a \ A" \<comment> \<open>Example 7.\<close> by force
lemma"(\u v. u < (0::int) \ u \ \v\) \<longrightarrow> (\<exists>A::int set. -2 \<in> A & (\<forall>y. \<bar>y\<bar> \<notin> A))" \<comment> \<open>Example 8 needs a small hint.\<close> by force \<comment> \<open>not \<open>blast\<close>, which can't simplify \<open>-2 < 0\<close>\<close>
text\<open>Example 9 omitted (requires the reals).\<close>
text\<open>The paper has no Example 10!\<close>
lemma"(\A. 0 \ A \ (\x \ A. Suc x \ A) \ n \ A) \
P 0 \<and> (\<forall>x. P x \<longrightarrow> P (Suc x)) \<longrightarrow> P n" \<comment> \<open>Example 11: needs a hint.\<close> by(metis nat.induct)
lemma "(\A. (0, 0) \ A \ (\x y. (x, y) \ A \ (Suc x, Suc y) \ A) \ (n, m) \ A) \<and> P n \<longrightarrow> P m" \<comment> \<open>Example 12.\<close> by auto
lemma "(\x. (\u. x = 2 * u) = (\ (\v. Suc x = 2 * v))) \
(\<exists>A. \<forall>x. (x \<in> A) = (Suc x \<notin> A))" \<comment> \<open>Example EO1: typo in article, and with the obvious fix it seems to require arithmetic reasoning. 2024-06-19: now trivial forsledgehammer (LCP)\<close> by (metis even_Suc mem_Collect_eq)
end
¤ Die Informationen auf dieser Webseite wurden
nach bestem Wissen sorgfältig zusammengestellt. Es wird jedoch weder Vollständigkeit, noch Richtigkeit,
noch Qualität der bereit gestellten Informationen zugesichert.0.16Bemerkung:
(vorverarbeitet)
¤
Die Informationen auf dieser Webseite wurden
nach bestem Wissen sorgfältig zusammengestellt. Es wird jedoch weder Vollständigkeit, noch Richtigkeit,
noch Qualität der bereit gestellten Informationen zugesichert.
Bemerkung:
Die farbliche Syntaxdarstellung ist noch experimentell.