(* Title: HOL/Lattice/CompleteLattice.thy
Author: Markus Wenzel, TU Muenchen
*)
section ‹Complete lattices
›
theory CompleteLattice
imports Lattice
begin
subsection ‹Complete lattice operations
›
text ‹
A
\emph{complete lattice}
is a partial order
with general
(infinitary) infimum of any set of elements. General supremum
exists as well, as a consequence of the connection of infinitary
bounds (see
\S\ref{sec:connect-bounds}).
›
class complete_lattice =
assumes ex_Inf:
"\inf. is_Inf A inf"
theorem ex_Sup:
"\sup::'a::complete_lattice. is_Sup A sup"
proof -
from ex_Inf
obtain sup
where "is_Inf {b. \a\A. a \ b} sup" by blast
then have "is_Sup A sup" by (rule Inf_Sup)
then show ?thesis ..
qed
text ‹
The general
‹⊓› (meet)
and ‹⊔› (join) operations select
such infimum
and supremum elements.
›
definition
Meet ::
"'a::complete_lattice set \ 'a" (
‹⊓_
› [90] 90)
where
"\A = (THE inf. is_Inf A inf)"
definition
Join ::
"'a::complete_lattice set \ 'a" (
‹⊔_
› [90] 90)
where
"\A = (THE sup. is_Sup A sup)"
text ‹
Due
to unique existence of bounds, the complete lattice operations
may be exhibited as follows.
›
lemma Meet_equality [elim?]:
"is_Inf A inf \ \A = inf"
proof (unfold Meet_def)
assume "is_Inf A inf"
then show "(THE inf. is_Inf A inf) = inf"
by (rule the_equality) (rule is_Inf_uniq [OF _
‹is_Inf A inf
›])
qed
lemma MeetI [intro?]:
"(\a. a \ A \ inf \ a) \
(
∧b.
∀a
∈ A. b
⊑ a
==> b
⊑ inf)
==>
⊓A = inf
"
by (rule Meet_equality, rule is_InfI) blast+
lemma Join_equality [elim?]:
"is_Sup A sup \ \A = sup"
proof (unfold Join_def)
assume "is_Sup A sup"
then show "(THE sup. is_Sup A sup) = sup"
by (rule the_equality) (rule is_Sup_uniq [OF _
‹is_Sup A sup
›])
qed
lemma JoinI [intro?]:
"(\a. a \ A \ a \ sup) \
(
∧b.
∀a
∈ A. a
⊑ b
==> sup
⊑ b)
==>
⊔A = sup
"
by (rule Join_equality, rule is_SupI) blast+
text ‹
\medskip The
‹⊓› and ‹⊔› operations indeed determine
bounds on a complete lattice
structure.
›
lemma is_Inf_Meet [intro?]:
"is_Inf A (\A)"
proof (unfold Meet_def)
from ex_Inf
obtain inf
where "is_Inf A inf" ..
then show "is_Inf A (THE inf. is_Inf A inf)"
by (rule theI) (rule is_Inf_uniq [OF _
‹is_Inf A inf
›])
qed
lemma Meet_greatest [intro?]:
"(\a. a \ A \ x \ a) \ x \ \A"
by (rule is_Inf_greatest, rule is_Inf_Meet) blast
lemma Meet_lower [intro?]:
"a \ A \ \A \ a"
by (rule is_Inf_lower) (rule is_Inf_Meet)
lemma is_Sup_Join [intro?]:
"is_Sup A (\A)"
proof (unfold Join_def)
from ex_Sup
obtain sup
where "is_Sup A sup" ..
then show "is_Sup A (THE sup. is_Sup A sup)"
by (rule theI) (rule is_Sup_uniq [OF _
‹is_Sup A sup
›])
qed
lemma Join_least [intro?]:
"(\a. a \ A \ a \ x) \ \A \ x"
by (rule is_Sup_least, rule is_Sup_Join) blast
lemma Join_lower [intro?]:
"a \ A \ a \ \A"
by (rule is_Sup_upper) (rule is_Sup_Join)
subsection ‹The Knaster-Tarski
Theorem›
text ‹
The Knaster-Tarski
Theorem (
in its simplest formulation)
states that
any monotone
function on a complete lattice has a least fixed-point
(see
🍋‹‹pages 93--94
› in "Davey-Priestley:1990"› for example). This
is a consequence of the basic boundary properties of the complete
lattice operations.
›
theorem Knaster_Tarski:
assumes mono:
"\x y. x \ y \ f x \ f y"
obtains a ::
"'a::complete_lattice" where
"f a = a" and "\a'. f a' = a' \ a \ a'"
proof
let ?H =
"{u. f u \ u}"
let ?a =
"\?H"
show "f ?a = ?a"
proof -
have ge:
"f ?a \ ?a"
proof
fix x
assume x:
"x \ ?H"
then have "?a \ x" ..
then have "f ?a \ f x" by (rule mono)
also from x
have "... \ x" ..
finally show "f ?a \ x" .
qed
also have "?a \ f ?a"
proof
from ge
have "f (f ?a) \ f ?a" by (rule mono)
then show "f ?a \ ?H" ..
qed
finally show ?thesis .
qed
fix a
'
assume "f a' = a'"
then have "f a' \ a'" by (simp only: leq_refl)
then have "a' \ ?H" ..
then show "?a \ a'" ..
qed
theorem Knaster_Tarski_dual:
assumes mono:
"\x y. x \ y \ f x \ f y"
obtains a ::
"'a::complete_lattice" where
"f a = a" and "\a'. f a' = a' \ a' \ a"
proof
let ?H =
"{u. u \ f u}"
let ?a =
"\?H"
show "f ?a = ?a"
proof -
have le:
"?a \ f ?a"
proof
fix x
assume x:
"x \ ?H"
then have "x \ f x" ..
also from x
have "x \ ?a" ..
then have "f x \ f ?a" by (rule mono)
finally show "x \ f ?a" .
qed
have "f ?a \ ?a"
proof
from le
have "f ?a \ f (f ?a)" by (rule mono)
then show "f ?a \ ?H" ..
qed
from this
and le
show ?thesis
by (rule leq_antisym)
qed
fix a
'
assume "f a' = a'"
then have "a' \ f a'" by (simp only: leq_refl)
then have "a' \ ?H" ..
then show "a' \ ?a" ..
qed
subsection ‹Bottom
and top elements
›
text ‹
With general bounds available, complete lattices
also have least
and
greatest elements.
›
definition
bottom ::
"'a::complete_lattice" (
‹⊥›)
where
"\ = \UNIV"
definition
top ::
"'a::complete_lattice" (
‹⊤›)
where
"\ = \UNIV"
lemma bottom_least [intro?]:
"\ \ x"
proof (unfold bottom_def)
have "x \ UNIV" ..
then show "\UNIV \ x" ..
qed
lemma bottomI [intro?]:
"(\a. x \ a) \ \ = x"
proof (unfold bottom_def)
assume "\a. x \ a"
show "\UNIV = x"
proof
fix a
show "x \ a" by fact
next
fix b ::
"'a::complete_lattice"
assume b:
"\a \ UNIV. b \ a"
have "x \ UNIV" ..
with b
show "b \ x" ..
qed
qed
lemma top_greatest [intro?]:
"x \ \"
proof (unfold top_def)
have "x \ UNIV" ..
then show "x \ \UNIV" ..
qed
lemma topI [intro?]:
"(\a. a \ x) \ \ = x"
proof (unfold top_def)
assume "\a. a \ x"
show "\UNIV = x"
proof
fix a
show "a \ x" by fact
next
fix b ::
"'a::complete_lattice"
assume b:
"\a \ UNIV. a \ b"
have "x \ UNIV" ..
with b
show "x \ b" ..
qed
qed
subsection ‹Duality
›
text ‹
The
class of complete lattices
is closed under formation of dual
structures.
›
instance dual :: (complete_lattice) complete_lattice
proof
fix A
' :: "'a::complete_lattice dual set
"
show "\inf'. is_Inf A' inf'"
proof -
have "\sup. is_Sup (undual ` A') sup" by (rule ex_Sup)
then have "\sup. is_Inf (dual ` undual ` A') (dual sup)" by (simp only: dual_Inf)
then show ?thesis
by (simp add: dual_ex [symmetric] image_comp)
qed
qed
text ‹
Apparently, the
‹⊓› and ‹⊔› operations are dual
to each
other.
›
theorem dual_Meet [intro?]:
"dual (\A) = \(dual ` A)"
proof -
from is_Inf_Meet
have "is_Sup (dual ` A) (dual (\A))" ..
then have "\(dual ` A) = dual (\A)" ..
then show ?thesis ..
qed
theorem dual_Join [intro?]:
"dual (\A) = \(dual ` A)"
proof -
from is_Sup_Join
have "is_Inf (dual ` A) (dual (\A))" ..
then have "\(dual ` A) = dual (\A)" ..
then show ?thesis ..
qed
text ‹
Likewise are
‹⊥› and ‹⊤› duals of each other.
›
theorem dual_bottom [intro?]:
"dual \ = \"
proof -
have "\ = dual \"
proof
fix a
' have "\ \ undual a'" ..
then have "dual (undual a') \ dual \" ..
then show "a' \ dual \" by simp
qed
then show ?thesis ..
qed
theorem dual_top [intro?]:
"dual \ = \"
proof -
have "\ = dual \"
proof
fix a
' have "undual a' ⊑ ⊤" ..
then have "dual \ \ dual (undual a')" ..
then show "dual \ \ a'" by simp
qed
then show ?thesis ..
qed
subsection ‹Complete lattices are lattices
›
text ‹
Complete lattices (
with general bounds available) are indeed plain
lattices as well. This holds due
to the connection of general
versus binary bounds that has been formally established
in
\S\ref{sec:gen-bin-bounds}.
›
lemma is_inf_binary:
"is_inf x y (\{x, y})"
proof -
have "is_Inf {x, y} (\{x, y})" ..
then show ?thesis
by (simp only: is_Inf_binary)
qed
lemma is_sup_binary:
"is_sup x y (\{x, y})"
proof -
have "is_Sup {x, y} (\{x, y})" ..
then show ?thesis
by (simp only: is_Sup_binary)
qed
instance complete_lattice
⊆ lattice
proof
fix x y ::
"'a::complete_lattice"
from is_inf_binary
show "\inf. is_inf x y inf" ..
from is_sup_binary
show "\sup. is_sup x y sup" ..
qed
theorem meet_binary:
"x \ y = \{x, y}"
by (rule meet_equality) (rule is_inf_binary)
theorem join_binary:
"x \ y = \{x, y}"
by (rule join_equality) (rule is_sup_binary)
subsection ‹Complete lattices
and set-theory operations
›
text ‹
The complete lattice operations are (anti) monotone wrt.
\ set
inclusion.
›
theorem Meet_subset_antimono:
"A \ B \ \B \ \A"
proof (rule Meet_greatest)
fix a
assume "a \ A"
also assume "A \ B"
finally have "a \ B" .
then show "\B \ a" ..
qed
theorem Join_subset_mono:
"A \ B \ \A \ \B"
proof -
assume "A \ B"
then have "dual ` A \ dual ` B" by blast
then have "\(dual ` B) \ \(dual ` A)" by (rule Meet_subset_antimono)
then have "dual (\B) \ dual (\A)" by (simp only: dual_Join)
then show ?thesis
by (simp only: dual_leq)
qed
text ‹
Bounds over unions of sets may be obtained separately.
›
theorem Meet_Un:
"\(A \ B) = \A \ \B"
proof
fix a
assume "a \ A \ B"
then show "\A \ \B \ a"
proof
assume a:
"a \ A"
have "\A \ \B \ \A" ..
also from a
have "\ \ a" ..
finally show ?thesis .
next
assume a:
"a \ B"
have "\A \ \B \ \B" ..
also from a
have "\ \ a" ..
finally show ?thesis .
qed
next
fix b
assume b:
"\a \ A \ B. b \ a"
show "b \ \A \ \B"
proof
show "b \ \A"
proof
fix a
assume "a \ A"
then have "a \ A \ B" ..
with b
show "b \ a" ..
qed
show "b \ \B"
proof
fix a
assume "a \ B"
then have "a \ A \ B" ..
with b
show "b \ a" ..
qed
qed
qed
theorem Join_Un:
"\(A \ B) = \A \ \B"
proof -
have "dual (\(A \ B)) = \(dual ` A \ dual ` B)"
by (simp only: dual_Join image_Un)
also have "\ = \(dual ` A) \ \(dual ` B)"
by (rule Meet_Un)
also have "\ = dual (\A \ \B)"
by (simp only: dual_join dual_Join)
finally show ?thesis ..
qed
text ‹
Bounds over singleton sets are trivial.
›
theorem Meet_singleton:
"\{x} = x"
proof
fix a
assume "a \ {x}"
then have "a = x" by simp
then show "x \ a" by (simp only: leq_refl)
next
fix b
assume "\a \ {x}. b \ a"
then show "b \ x" by simp
qed
theorem Join_singleton:
"\{x} = x"
proof -
have "dual (\{x}) = \{dual x}" by (simp add: dual_Join)
also have "\ = dual x" by (rule Meet_singleton)
finally show ?thesis ..
qed
text ‹
Bounds over the empty
and universal set correspond
to each other.
›
theorem Meet_empty:
"\{} = \UNIV"
proof
fix a ::
"'a::complete_lattice"
assume "a \ {}"
then have False
by simp
then show "\UNIV \ a" ..
next
fix b ::
"'a::complete_lattice"
have "b \ UNIV" ..
then show "b \ \UNIV" ..
qed
theorem Join_empty:
"\{} = \UNIV"
proof -
have "dual (\{}) = \{}" by (simp add: dual_Join)
also have "\ = \UNIV" by (rule Meet_empty)
also have "\ = dual (\UNIV)" by (simp add: dual_Meet)
finally show ?thesis ..
qed
end