I'm playing with observational type theory.
Here is equality of π-types (π is the lowercase Π, i.e. π A B is the code for (x : A) -> B x) defined mutually with coercions:
π A₁ B₁ ≃ π A₂ B₂ = σ (A₂ ≃ A₁) λ P -> π _ λ x -> B₁ (coerce P x) ≃ B₂ x
and equality of functions defined accordingly (σ is the lowercase Σ):
_≅_ {A = π A₁ B₁} {π A₂ B₂} f₁ f₂ = σ (A₂ ≃ A₁) λ P -> π _ λ x -> f₁ (coerce P x) ≅ f₂ x
So instead of "equal functions map equal inputs to equal outputs" we have "equal functions map definitionally equal inputs to equal outputs".
In this setting coherence
coerce : ∀ {α β} {A : Univ α} {B : Univ β} -> ⟦ A ≃ B ⟧ᵀ -> ⟦ A ⟧ᵀ -> ⟦ B ⟧ᵀ
coherence : ∀ {α β} {A : Univ α} {B : Univ β}
-> (P : ⟦ A ≃ B ⟧ᵀ) -> (x : ⟦ A ⟧ᵀ) -> ⟦ x ≅ coerce P x ⟧ᵀ
(Univ 0 is Prop, Univ (suc α) is Type α)
is provable. The only thing I needed to postulate is
postulate ≃-refl : ∀ {α} -> (A : Univ α) -> ⟦ A ≃ A ⟧ᵀ
But we can tweak equality to handle A ≃ A as a special case (I think, trustMe needs a friend _≟_ : ∀ {α} {A : Set α} (x y : A) -> Maybe (x ≡ y)).
We still need to postulate something to define subst and other stuff.
Did I miss something? Do we lose any irrelevance? It seems suspicious to mention type equality in the definition of equality of functions. Do we lose much by restricting inputs of equal functions to be definitionally equal? Is there anything good about having strongly normalizing coherence or it doesn't matter, since it's computationally irrelevant anyway?
The code (I ignored positivity, termination and cumulativity issues altogether).
Firstly, thanks for asking about Observational Type Theory. Secondly, what you've done here does seem to hang together, even though it has things in different places from where Thorsten Altenkirch, Wouter Swierstra and I put them in our version of the story. Thirdly, it's no surprise (at least not to me) that coherence is derivable, leaving reflexivity the only postulate. That's true of our OTT as well, and Wouter did the proofs in Agda 1, back when we wrote that paper. Proof irrelevance and the shortness of life meant I didn't port his proofs to Agda 2.
If you've missed anything, it's lurking in your remark
We still need to postulate something to define subst and other stuff.
If you have some P : X -> Set, some a, b : X and some q : a = b, you expect to get a function in P a -> P b. The "equal functions take equal inputs to equal outputs" formulation gives you that, as refl P : P = P, so from q, we can deduce P a = P b. Your "equal functions take a given input to equal outputs" formulation does not allow you to let q bridge the gap from a to b.
In the presence of refl and subst, "two equal inputs" amounts to the same thing as "one input used in two places". It seems to me that you've moved the work into whatever else you need to get subst. Depending on how lazy your definition of coerce is (and that's how you get proof irrelevance), you will need only a postulate.
With your particular formulation, you might even get away with a homogeneous value equality. If you're fixing type gaps with coercions rather than equations, you might save yourself some trouble (and maybe get rid of that equation on the domain type in function equality). Of course, in that case, you'd need to think about how to replace the statement of coherence.
We tried quite hard to keep coercion out of the definition of equality, to retain some sort of symmetry, and to keep type equations out of value equations, mostly to have less to think about at one go. It's interesting to see that at least some parts of the construction might get easier with "a thing and its coercion" replacing "two equal things".
Related
During some development using cubical-agda, I noticed (and later checked) that my current goal, if proven would also imply such theorem:
parametric? : ∀ ℓ → Type (ℓ-suc ℓ)
parametric? ℓ = (f : {A : Type ℓ} → List A ≃ List A)
→ (A : Type ℓ) → length ∘ equivFun (f {A}) ≡ length
I suspect that this is example of parametric theorem, which is true, but is unprovable in cubical agda. Is it the case?
Can I safely assume that my current goal is also unprovable?
Yes, because it's false in the standard (simplicial sets) model.
If excluded middle holds, we can define f : {A : Type ℓ} → List A ≃ List A by first doing a case analysis on whether A is contractible or not. If A is not contractible, f gives the identity equivalence, but if A is contractible, then List A is equivalent to Nat, and, f can give an equivalence that, e.g., permutes odds and evens.
I wrote a function on the natural numbers that uses the operator _<?_ with the with-abstraction.
open import Data.Maybe
open import Data.Nat
open import Data.Nat.Properties
open import Relation.Binary.PropositionalEquality
open import Relation.Nullary
fun : ℕ → ℕ → Maybe ℕ
fun x y with x <? y
... | yes _ = nothing
... | no _ = just y
I would like to prove that if the result of computing with fun is nothing then the original two values (x and y) fulfill x < y.
So far all my attempts fall short to prove the property:
prop : ∀ (x y)
→ fun x y ≡ nothing
→ x < y
prop x y with fun x y
... | just _ = λ()
... | nothing = λ{refl → ?} -- from-yes (x <? y)}
-- This fails because the pattern matching is incomplete,
-- but it shouldn't. There are no other cases
prop' : ∀ (x y)
→ fun x y ≡ nothing
→ x < y
prop' x y with fun x y | x <? y
... | nothing | yes x<y = λ{refl → x<y}
... | just _ | no _ = λ()
--... | _ | _ = ?
In general, I've found that working with the with-abstraction is painful. It is probably due to the fact that with and | hide some magic in the background. I would like to understand what with and | really do, but the "Technical details" currently escape my understanding. Do you know where to look for to understand how to interpret them?
Concrete solution
You need to case-split on the same element on which you case-split in your function:
prop : ∀ x y → fun x y ≡ nothing → x < y
prop x y _ with x <? y
... | yes p = p
In the older versions of Agda, you would have had to write the following:
prop-old : ∀ x y → fun x y ≡ nothing → x < y
prop-old x y _ with x <? y
prop-old _ _ refl | yes p = p
prop-old _ _ () | no _
But now you are able to completely omit a case when it leads to a direct contradiction, which is, in this case, that nothing and just smth can never be equal.
Detailed explanation
To understand how with works you first need to understand how definitional equality is used in Agda to reduce goals. Definitional equality binds a function call with its associated expression depending on the structure of its input. In Agda, this is easily seen by the use of the equal sign in the definition of the different cases of a function (although since Agda builds a tree of cases some definitional equalities might not hold in some cases, but let's forget this for now).
Let us consider the following definition of the addition over naturals:
_+_ : ℕ → ℕ → ℕ
zero + b = b
(suc a) + b = suc (a + b)
This definition provides two definitional equalities that bind zero + b with b and (suc a) + b with suc (a + b). The good thing with definitional equalities (as opposed to propositional equalities) is that Agda automatically uses them to reduce goals whenever possible. This means that, for instance, if in a further goal you have the element zero + p for any p then Agda will automatically reduce it to p.
To allow Agda to do such reduction, which is fundamental in most cases, Agda needs to know which of these two equalities can be exploited, which means a case-split on the first argument of this addition has to be made in any further proof about addition for a reduction to be possible. (Except for composite proofs based on other proofs which use such case-splits).
When using with you basically add additional definitional equalities depending on the structure of the additional element. This only makes sense, understanding that, that you need to case-split on said element when doing proofs about such a function, in order for Agda once again to be able to make use of these definitional equalities.
Let us take your example and apply this reasoning to it, first without the recent ability to omit impossible cases. You need to prove the following statement:
prop-old : ∀ x y → fun x y ≡ nothing → x < y
Introducing parameters in the context, you write the following line:
prop-old x y p = ?
Having written that line, you need to provide a proof of x < y with the elements in the context. x and y are just natural so you expect p to hold enough information for this result to be provable. But, in this case, p is just of type fun x y ≡ nothing which does not give you enough information. However, this type contains a call to function fun so there is hope ! Looking at the definition of fun, we can see that it yields two definitional equalities, which depend on the structure of x <? y. This means that adding this parameter to the proof by using with once more will allow Agda to make use of these equalities. This leads to the following code:
prop-old : ∀ x y → fun x y ≡ nothing → x < y
prop-old x y p with x <? y
prop-old _ _ p | yes q = ?
prop-old _ _ p | no q = ?
At that point, not only did Agda case-split on x <? y, but it also reduced the goal because it is able, in both cases, to use a specific definitional equality of fun. Let us take a closer look at both cases:
In the yes q case, p is now of type nothing ≡ nothing and q is of type x < y which is exactly what you want to prove, which means the goal is simply solved by:
prop-old _ _ p | yes q = q
I the no q case, something more interesting happens, which is somewhat harder to understand. After reduction, p is now of type just y ≡ nothing because Agda could use the second definitional equality of fun. Since _≡_ is a data type, it is possible to case-split on p which basically asks Agda: "Look at this data type and give me all the possible constructors for an element of type just y ≡ nothing". At first, Agda only finds one possible constructor, refl, but this constructor only builds an element of a type where both sides of the equality are the same, which is not the case here by definition because just and nothing are two distinct constructors from the same data type, Maybe. Agda then concludes that there are no possible constructors that could ever build an element of such type, hence this case is actually not possible, which leads to Agda replacing p with the empty pattern () and dismissing this case. This line is thus simply:
prop-old _ _ () | no _
In the more recent versions of Agda, as I explained earlier, some of these steps are done directly by Agda which allows us to directly omit impossible cases when the emptiness of a pattern can be deduced behind the curtain, which leads to the prettier:
prop : ∀ x y → fun x y ≡ nothing → x < y
prop x y _ with x <? y
... | yes p = p
But it is the same process, just done a bit more automatically. Hopefully, these elements will be of some use in your journey towards understanding Agda.
I am just learning the Agda, but I do not understand that when I am trying to prove Identity over Addition then, I see that Left Identity is trivial proof.
left+identity : ∀ n -> (zero + n) ≡ n
left+identity n = refl
But It is not true for Right Identity.
right+identity : ∀ n -> (n + zero) ≡ n
right+identity zero = refl
right+identity (suc n) = cong suc (right+identity n)
I can not understand the reason. Please explain. Thanks.
The problem is how dependent typed theories deal with equality. Usually, the definition of addition is:
_+_ : Nat -> Nat -> Nat
zero + m = m -- (1)
(suc n) + m = suc (n + m) -- (2)
Notice that equation one implies left identity. When you have:
forall n -> 0 + n = n
Agda's type checker can use equation (1) of addition to verify that the equality holds. Remember, the propositional equality constructor (refl) has the type
refl : x == x
So, when you use refl as an proof for the left identity, Agda will try to reduce both sides of equality (normalize them) and check if they are indeed equal. Using the definition of addition, left identity is immediate, by equation (1).
But for the right identity this does not hold by definition. Note that when we have
n + 0 == n
Agda's type checker cannot use addition equations in order to check that this equality indeed hold. The only way to prove this equality is using induction (or, if your prefer, recursion).
Hope that this can help you.
I am new to Agda and I need help to understand the Decidable function and Dec type.
I am trying to define a first-order-logic predicate, and I want to encode with the proof some sort of boolean value. I found the way to do this is using the Dec type..
Now, as far as I get it, to be able to do this, I have to re-define all logic operators to be of type decidable rather than of type set. to do so, I sort of embedded it into new type, this is how I did it for the and operator:
data _∧_ (A B : Set) : Set where
_&_ : A → B → A ∧ B
Dec∧ : {A B : Set} → A ∧ B → Dec (A ∧ B)
Dec∧ A∧B = yes (A∧B)
Is it the way to do it, or is there another way?
Then, I want to use this operator to define a relation on Nat values, so I did something like this:
_◆_ : ℕ → ℕ → Dec∧ (Rel ℕ lzero) (ℕ → Set)
x ◆ y = (0 < x) ∧ (x ² ≡ 2 * y ²)
but this gives a type error..
I am not sure how to work with Dec and I would appreciate if anyone can guide me to tutorials or examples using it for proving logical statements..
Basically decidable predicate is a predicate for which we have an algorithm which terminates in finite time and returns either a yes together with a proof that it's true, or no together with a proof of it's negation. For example, for each two natural numbers we can either prove that they are equal or that they aren't equal.
What you wrote doesn't type check. Your function should return Dec (Rel ℕ lzero) (ℕ → Set), the first argument is correct, the second however, isn't. It should be a function, for example, \x -> 2 * x.
P.S. To me the function makes no sense. What do you want to accomplish with it?
Is there a way to conveniently use multiple instantiations of EqReasoning where the underlying Setoid is not necessarily semantic equality (i.e. ≡-Reasoning cannot be used)? The reason that ≡-Reasoning is convenient is that the type argument is implicit and it uniquely determines the Setoid in use by automatically selecting semantic equality. When using arbitrary Setoids there is no such unique selection. However a number of structures provide a canonical way to lift a Setoid:
Data.Maybe and Data.Covec have a setoid member.
Data.Vec.Equality.Equality provides enough definitions to write a canonical Setoid lifting for Vec as well. Interestingly there is also is a slightly different equality available at Relation.Binary.Vec.Pointwise, but it does not provide a direct lifting either albeit implementing all the necessary bits.
Data.List ships a Setoid lifting in Relation.Binary.List.Pointwise.
Data.Container also knows how to lift a Setoid.
By using any of these structures, one automatically gets to work with multiple Setoids even if one started out with one. When proofs use these structures (multiple of them in a single proof), it becomes difficult to write down the proof, because EqReasoning must be instantiated for all of them even though each particular Setoid is kind of obvious. This can be done by renaming begin_, _≈⟨_⟩_ and _∎, but I don't consider this renaming convenient.
Consider for example, a proof in the Setoid of Maybe where a sequence of arguments needs to be wrapped in Data.Maybe.Eq.just (think cong just) or a proof in an arbitrary Setoid that temporarily needs to wrap things in a just constructor exploiting its injectivity.
Normally, the only way Agda can pick something for you is when it is uniquely determined by the context. In the case of EqReasoning, there isn't usually enough information to pin down the Setoid, even worse actually: you could have two different Setoids over the same Carrier and _≈_ (consider for example two definitionally unequal proofs of transitivity in the isEquivalence field).
However, Agda does allow special form of implicit arguments, which can be filled as long as there is only one value of the desired type. These are known as instance arguments (think instance as in Haskell type class instances).
To demonstrate roughly how this works:
postulate
A : Set
a : A
Now, instance arguments are wrapped in double curly braces {{}}:
elem : {{x : A}} → A
elem {{x}} = x
If we decide to later use elem somewhere, Agda will check for any values of type A in scope and if there's only one of them, it'll fill that one in for {{x : A}}. If we added:
postulate
b : A
Agda will now complain that:
Resolve instance argument _x_7 : A. Candidates: [a : A, b : A]
Because Agda already allows you to perform computations on type level, instance arguments are deliberately limited in what they can do, namely Agda won't perform recursive search to fill them in. Consider for example:
eq : ... → IsEquivalence _≈_ → IsEquivalence (Eq _≈_)
where Eq is Data.Maybe.Eq mentioned in your question. When you then require Agda to fill in an instance argument of a type IsEquivalence (Eq _≈_), it won't try to find something of type IsEquivalence _≈_ and apply eq to it.
With that out of the way, let's take a look at what could work. However, bear in mind that all this stands on unification and as such you might need to push it in the right direction here and there (and if the types you are dealing with become complex, unification might require you to give it so many directions that it won't be worth it in the end).
Personally, I find instance arguments a bit fragile and I usually avoid them (and from a quick check, it would seem that so does the standard library), but your experience might vary.
Anyways, here we go. I constructed a (totally nonsensical) example to demonstrate how to do it. Some boilerplate first:
open import Data.Maybe
open import Data.Nat
open import Relation.Binary
import Relation.Binary.EqReasoning as EqR
To make this example self-contained, I wrote some kind of Setoid with natural numbers as its carrier:
data _≡ℕ_ : ℕ → ℕ → Set where
z≡z : 0 ≡ℕ 0
s≡s : ∀ {m n} → m ≡ℕ n → suc m ≡ℕ suc n
ℕ-setoid : Setoid _ _
ℕ-setoid = record
{ _≈_ = _≡ℕ_
; isEquivalence = record
{ refl = refl
; sym = sym
; trans = trans
}
}
where
refl : Reflexive _≡ℕ_
refl {zero} = z≡z
refl {suc _} = s≡s refl
sym : Symmetric _≡ℕ_
sym z≡z = z≡z
sym (s≡s p) = s≡s (sym p)
trans : Transitive _≡ℕ_
trans z≡z q = q
trans (s≡s p) (s≡s q) = s≡s (trans p q)
Now, the EqReasoning module is parametrized over a Setoid, so usually you do something like this:
open EqR ℕ-setoid
However, we'd like to have the Setoid parameter to be implicit (instance) rather than explicit, so we define and open a dummy module:
open module Dummy {c ℓ} {{s : Setoid c ℓ}} = EqR s
And we can write this simple proof:
idʳ : ∀ n → n ≡ℕ (n + 0)
idʳ 0 = z≡z
idʳ (suc n) = begin
suc n ≈⟨ s≡s (idʳ n) ⟩
suc (n + 0) ∎
Notice that we never had to specify ℕ-setoid, the instance argument picked it up because it was the only type-correct value.
Now, let's spice it up a bit. We'll add Data.Maybe.setoid into the mix. Again, because instance arguments do not perform a recursive search, we'll have to define the setoid ourselves:
Maybeℕ-setoid = setoid ℕ-setoid
_≡M_ = Setoid._≈_ Maybeℕ-setoid
I'm going to postulate few stupid things just to demonstrate that Agda indeed picks correct setoids:
postulate
comm : ∀ m n → (m + n) ≡ℕ (n + m)
eq0 : ∀ n → n ≡ℕ 0
eq∅ : just 0 ≡M nothing
lem : ∀ n → just (n + 0) ≡M nothing
lem n = begin
just (n + 0) ≈⟨ just
(begin
n + 0 ≈⟨ comm n 0 ⟩
n ≈⟨ eq0 n ⟩
0 ∎
)⟩
just 0 ≈⟨ eq∅ ⟩
nothing ∎
I figured an alternative to the proposed solution using instance arguments that slightly bends the requirements, but fits my purpose. The major burden in the question was having to explicitly open EqReasoning multiple times and especially having to invent new names for the contained symbols. A slight improvement would be to pass the correct Setoid once per relation proof. In other words passing it to begin_ or _∎ somehow. Then we could make the Setoid implicit for all the other functions!
import Relation.Binary.EqReasoning as EqR
import Relation.Binary using (Setoid)
module ExplicitEqR where
infix 1 begin⟨_⟩_
infixr 2 _≈⟨_⟩_ _≡⟨_⟩_
infix 2 _∎
begin⟨_⟩_ : ∀ {c l} (X : Setoid c l) → {x y : Setoid.Carrier X} → EqR._IsRelatedTo_ X x y → Setoid._≈_ X x y
begin⟨_⟩_ X p = EqR.begin_ X p
_∎ : ∀ {c l} {X : Setoid c l} → (x : Setoid.Carrier X) → EqR._IsRelatedTo_ X x x
_∎ {X = X} = EqR._∎ X
_≈⟨_⟩_ : ∀ {c l} {X : Setoid c l} → (x : Setoid.Carrier X) → {y z : Setoid.Carrier X} → Setoid._≈_ X x y → EqR._IsRelatedTo_ X y z → EqR._IsRelatedTo_ X x z
_≈⟨_⟩_ {X = X} = EqR._≈⟨_⟩_ X
_≡⟨_⟩_ : ∀ {c l} {X : Setoid c l} → (x : Setoid.Carrier X) → {y z : Setoid.Carrier X} → x ≡ y → EqR._IsRelatedTo_ X y z → EqR._IsRelatedTo_ X x z
_≡⟨_⟩_ {X = X} = EqR._≡⟨_⟩_ X
Reusing the nice example from Vitus answer, we can write it:
lem : ∀ n → just (n + 0) ≡M nothing
lem n = begin⟨ Data.Maybe.setoid ℕ-setoid ⟩
just (n + 0) ≈⟨ just
(begin⟨ ℕ-setoid ⟩
n + 0 ≈⟨ comm n 0 ⟩
n ≈⟨ eq0 n ⟩
0 ∎
)⟩
just 0 ≈⟨ eq∅ ⟩
nothing ∎
where open ExplicitEqR
One still has to mention the Setoids in use, to avoid the use of instance arguments as presented by Vitus. However the technique makes it significantly more convenient.