(**********************************************************************) (* A few examples showing the current limits of the conversion algorithm *) (**********************************************************************)
(*** We define (pseudo-)divergence from Ackermann function ***)
Definition ack (n : nat) :=
(fix F (n0 : nat) : nat -> nat := match n0 with
| O => S
| S n1 => fun m : nat =>
(fix F0 (n2 : nat) : nat := match n2 with
| O => F n1 1
| S n3 => F n1 (F0 n3) end) m end) n.
Notation OMEGA := (ack 4 4).
Definition f (x:nat) := x.
(* Evaluation in tactics can somehow be controlled *) Lemma l1 : OMEGA = OMEGA. reflexivity. (* succeed: identity *) Qed. (* succeed: identity *)
Lemma l2 : OMEGA = f OMEGA. reflexivity. (* fail: conversion wants to convert OMEGA with f OMEGA *) Abort. (* but it reduces the right side first! *)
Lemma l3 : f OMEGA = OMEGA. reflexivity. (* succeed: reduce left side first *) Qed. (* succeed: expected concl (the one with f) is on the left *)
Lemma l4 : OMEGA = OMEGA. assert (f OMEGA = OMEGA) byreflexivity. (* succeed *) unfold f in H. (* succeed: no type-checking *) exact H. (* succeed: identity *) Qed. (* fail: "f" is on the left *)
(* This example would fail whatever the preferred side is *) Lemma l5 : OMEGA = f OMEGA. unfold f. assert (f OMEGA = OMEGA) byreflexivity. unfold f in H. exact H. Qed. (* needs to convert (f OMEGA = OMEGA) and (OMEGA = f OMEGA) *)
(**********************************************************************) (* Analysis of the inefficiency in Nijmegen/LinAlg/LinAlg/subspace_dim.v *) (* (proof of span_ind_uninject_prop *)
In the proof, a problem of the form (Equal S t1 t2)
is "simpl"ified, then"red"uced to (Equal S' t1 t1) where the new t1's are surrounded by invisible coercions.
A reflexivity steps conclude the proof.
The trick is that Equal projects the equality in the setoid S, and
that (Equal S) itself reduces to some (fun x y => Equal S' (f x) (g y)).
At the Qedtime, the problem to solve is (Equal S t1 t2) = (Equal S' t1 t1)
and the algorithm is to first compare S and S', and t1 and t2.
Unfortunately it does not work, and since t1 and t2 involve concrete
instances of algebraic structures, it takes a lot of time to realize that
it is not convertible.
The only hope to improve this problem is to observe that S' hides
(behind two indirections) a Setoid constructor. This could be the
argument to solve the problem.
Messung V0.5
¤ Dauer der Verarbeitung: 0.12 Sekunden
(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 und die Messung sind noch experimentell.