Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Replies: 39   Last Post: Jun 27, 2009 11:09 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
MeAmI.org

Posts: 405
Registered: 6/14/09
Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Posted: Jun 24, 2009 7:18 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Musatov schreiber:

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article
> <5295f40e-3b94-4b65-b5b1-9d8acc0ae0da@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 3) I don't like that you are using ";" for conjunction. The
> > established term is "and" and I see no reason to change it.
> > Since I also do programming I can live with & or && but not ;.

>
> He doesn't appear to be using ";" for conjunction. He's using it for
> statement termination, like a period in written English. If he were
> using it for conjunction, the last line in each group would not end with
> ";".
>
>
> --
> --Tim Smith


-";"

p f:R-->R that tells
you x-->sinx , without knowing what explicitly happenms to each term,
meaning without a listing of all specific
elements and its respective images.
x in R

Let \mathit{COMPOSITE} = \{x\in N:x=pq and R = \{(x,y)\in N\times N: A
proof of P = NP could have stunning practical consequences, if the
proof leads Toward combinatorial proof of Toward combinatorial proof
of P < NP Toward combinatorial proof of. P < NP. P < NP. L. Gordeev.
Tübingen-Utrecht. June 2006 [...] of reals x, y x y 0 x y 0 x?. ? y?0
a?b ,a?b x?. ? Algebraic versions of ?P=NP??X is NP. R if for all x ?
R n. , x ? X ? ?y ? M p(n). ?x,y? ? Y [....] NP. M . Proof sketch :
with access to an NP oracle, one can effectively ?run? [...]http://
www.ens-lyon.fr/LIP/MC2/files/Pascal_Koiran.pdf
P-versus-NP page
This yields yet another proof that P=NP. The paper is available at
[...] R(x), treated as a Boolean function, is in the complexity class
NP, but not in P. [...]http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm
and proof Clique is NP-Complete L is in RP iff there is a language L'
in P: L' is a subset of {(x,r): [....] If the verifier in MIP does not
use randomness, then MIP-with-no-randomness = NP <...>http://
www.cs.unm.edu/~gemmell/CS500/Dec8.ppt

Computational complexity theory Show P = NP implies that given any
polynomial-time relation R< ...> it) we can construct a polynomial-
time TM G such that (3y.R(x,y)) => R(x,G(x))
http://books.google.com/books?isbn=082182872<b>X</b>Algebraic versions
> of ?P=NP???x,y? ? Y with Y ? P. K . A typical NP. R. -complete
problem : <.....> Proof of (ii) based on ?P-completeness of
?HAMILTONIAN PATHS. http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Manifestations/MCU07/Talks/koiran.pdf
Require Export ZArith. Require Export List. Require Export Arith
<...>Lemma le_O_mult : forall n p:nat, 0*n <= 0*p. Proof. intros n p;
apply le_n. Qed. <....> (forall x:A, P x -R)->R. Definition my_le (n
p:nat) := for all P:nat http://www.labri.fr/perso/casteran/CoqArt/everyday/SRC/chap5.v
Specifically, R consists of all pairs (x , y) such that y is an NP-
[...] R e PC c Pf implies S e P. In the second part of the proof, we
associate with each R http://books.google.com/books?isbn=052188473<b>X</b>The
Coq Standard Library | The Coq Proof Assistant(forall p, p < m -> P n
p) -> P n m) -> forall n m, P n m. Proof. intros P Hrec p; pattern p
in |- *; apply [...] exists! x, P x /\ forall x', P x' -> R x x'.
> http://coq.inria.fr/distrib/V8.2rc1/stdlib/Coq.Arith.Wf_nat.html
The Coq Standard Library Library Coq.Arith.Wf_nat Well-founded
relations and natural numbers Require Import Lt.Open Local Scope
nat_scope.Implicit Types m n p : nat.Section Well_founded_Nat.Variable
A : Type.Variable f : A -> nat.Definition ltof (a b:A) := f a < f
b.Definition gtof (a b:A) := f b > f a.Theorem well_founded_ltof :
well_founded ltof.Proof.  red in |- *.  cut (forall n (a:A), f a < n -
> Acc ltof a).  intros H a; apply (H (S (f a))); auto with
arith.  induction n.  intros; absurd (f a < 0); auto with
arith.  intros a ltSma.  apply Acc_intro.  unfold ltof in |- *; intros
b ltfafb.  apply IHn.  apply lt_le_trans with (f a); auto with
arith.Defined.Theorem well_founded_gtof : well_founded
gtof.Proof.  exact well_founded_ltof.Defined.It is possible to
directly prove the induction principle going back to primitive
recursion on natural numbers (induction_ltof1) or to use the previous
lemmas to extract a program with a fixpoint (induction_ltof2) the ML-
like program for induction_ltof1 is : let induction_ltof1 f F a =  let
rec indrec n k =    match n with    | O -> error    | S m -> F k
(indrec m)  in indrec (f a + 1) a the ML-like program for
induction_ltof2 is : let induction_ltof2 F a = indrec a   where rec
indrec a = F a indrec;; Theorem induction_ltof1 :  forall P:A ->
Set,    (forall x:A, (forall y:A, ltof y x -> P y) -> P x) -> forall
a:A, P a.Proof.  intros P F; cut (forall n (a:A), f a < n -> P
a).  intros H a; apply (H (S (f a))); auto with arith.  induction
n.  intros; absurd (f a < 0); auto with arith.  intros a ltSma.  apply
F.  unfold ltof in |- *; intros b ltfafb.  apply IHn.  apply
lt_le_trans with (f a); auto with arith.Defined.Theorem
induction_gtof1 :  forall P:A -> Set,    (forall x:A, (forall y:A,
gtof y x -> P y) -> P x) -> forall a:A, P a.Proof.  exact
induction_ltof1.Defined.Theorem induction_ltof2 :  forall P:A ->
Set,    (forall x:A, (forall y:A, ltof y x -> P y) -> P x) -> forall
a:A, P a.Proof.  exact (well_founded_induction
well_founded_ltof).Defined.Theorem induction_gtof2 :  forall P:A ->
Set,    (forall x:A, (forall y:A, gtof y x -> P y) -> P x) -> forall
a:A, P a.Proof.  exact induction_ltof2.Defined.If a relation R is
compatible with lt i.e. if x R y => f(x) < f(y) then R is well-
founded. Variable R : A -> A -> Prop.Hypothesis H_compat : forall x
y:A, R x y -> f x < f y.Theorem well_founded_lt_compat : well_founded
R.Proof.  red in |- *.  cut (forall n (a:A), f a < n -> Acc R
a).  intros H a; apply (H (S (f a))); auto with arith.  induction
n.  intros; absurd (f a < 0); auto with arith.  intros a ltSma.  apply
Acc_intro.  intros b ltfafb.  apply IHn.  apply lt_le_trans with (f
a); auto with arith.Defined.End Well_founded_Nat.Lemma lt_wf :
well_founded lt.Proof.  exact (well_founded_ltof nat (fun m =>
m)).Defined.Lemma lt_wf_rec1 :  forall n (P:nat -> Set), (forall n,
(forall m, m < n -> P m) -> P n) -> P n.Proof.  exact (fun p P F =>
induction_ltof1 nat (fun m => m) P F p).Defined.Lemma
lt_wf_rec :  forall n (P:nat -> Set), (forall n, (forall m, m < n -> P
m) -> P n) -> P n.Proof.  exact (fun p P F => induction_ltof2 nat (fun
m => m) P F p).Defined.Lemma lt_wf_ind :  forall n (P:nat -> Prop),
(forall n, (forall m, m < n -> P m) -> P n) -> P n.Proof.  intro p;
intros; elim (lt_wf p); auto with arith.Qed.Lemma gt_wf_rec :  forall
n (P:nat -> Set), (forall n, (forall m, n > m -> P m) -> P n) -> P
n.Proof.  exact lt_wf_rec.Defined.Lemma gt_wf_ind :  forall n (P:nat -
> Prop), (forall n, (forall m, n > m -> P m) -> P n) -> P n.Proof
lt_wf_ind.Lemma lt_wf_double_rec : forall P:nat -> nat ->
Set,   (forall n m,     (forall p q, p < n -> P p q) ->     (forall p,
p < m -> P n p) -> P n m) -> forall n m, P n m.Proof.  intros P Hrec
p; pattern p in |- *; apply lt_wf_rec.  intros n H q; pattern q in |-
*; apply lt_wf_rec; auto with arith.Defined.Lemma
lt_wf_double_ind :  forall P:nat -> nat -> Prop,    (forall n
m,      (forall p (q:nat), p < n -> P p q) (for all p, p < m - P n p) -
> P n m) -> forall n m, P n m.Proof.  intros P Hrec p; pattern p in |-
*; apply lt_wf_ind.  intros n H q; pattern q in |- *; apply lt_wf_ind;
auto with arith.Qed.Hint Resolve lt_wf: arith.Hint Resolve
well_founded_lt_compat: arith.Section LT_WF_REL.  Variable A :
Set.  Variable R : A - A -> Prop.  Variable F : A -> nat ->
Prop.  Definition inv_lt_rel x y := exists2 n, F x n & (forall m, F y
m -> n < m).  Hypothesis F_compat : forall x y:A, R x y -> inv_lt_rel
x y.  Remark acc_lt_rel : forall x:A, (exists n, F x n) -> Acc R
x.  Proof.    intros x [n fxn]; generalize dependent x.    pattern n
in |- *; apply lt_wf_ind; intros.    constructor; intros.    destruct
(F_compat y x) as (x0,H1,H2); trivial.    apply (H x0);
auto.  Qed.  Theorem well_founded_inv_lt_rel_compat : well_founded
R.  Proof.    constructor; intros.    case (F_compat y a); trivial;
intros.    apply acc_lt_rel; trivial.    exists x; trivial.  Qed.End
LT_WF_REL.Lemma well_founded_inv_rel_inv_lt_rel :  forall (A:Set) (F:A
-> nat -> Prop), well_founded (inv_lt_rel A F).  intros; apply
(well_founded_inv_lt_rel_compat A (inv_lt_rel A F) F); trivial.Qed.A
constructive proof that any non empty decidable subset of natural
numbers has a least element Set Implicit Arguments.Require Import
Le.Require Import Compare_dec.Require Import Decidable.Definition
has_unique_least_element (A:Type) (R:A->A-Prop) (P:A-Prop) :=  exists!
x, P x /\ forall x', P x' -> R x x'.Lemma
dec_inh_nat_subset_has_unique_least_element :  forall P:nat->Prop,
(forall n, P n \/ ~ P n)     (exists n, P n) ->
has_unique_least_element le P.Proof.  intros P Pdec
(n0,HPn0).  assert    (forall n, (exists n', n'<n /\ P n' /\ forall
n'', P n'' -> n'<=n'')      \/(forall n', P n' -> n<=n')).  induction
n.  right.  intros n' Hn'.  apply le_O_n.  destruct IHn.  left;
destruct H as (n', (Hlt', HPn')).  exists n'; split.  apply lt_S;
assumption.  assumption.  destruct (Pdec n).  left; exists n;
split.  apply lt_n_Sn.  split; assumption.  right.  intros n'
Hltn'.  destruct (le_lt_eq_dec n n') as [Hltn|Heqn].  apply H;
assumption.  assumption.  destruct H0.  rewrite Heqn;
assumption.  destruct (H n0) as [(n,(Hltn,(Hmin,Huniqn)))|]; [exists n
| exists n0];    repeat split;      assumption || intros
n' (HPn',Hminn'); apply le_antisym; auto.Qed.Unset Implicit
Arguments.nth iteration of the function f Fixpoint iter_nat (n:nat)
(A:Type) (f:A -> A) (x:A) {struct n} : A :=  match n with    | O =>
x    | S n' => f (iter_nat n' A f x)  end.Theorem
iter_nat_plus :  forall (n m:nat) (A:Type) (f:A -> A)
(x:A),    iter_nat (n + m) A f x = iter_nat n A f (iter_nat m A f
x).Proof.  simple induction n;    [ simpl in |- *; auto with
arith      | intros; simpl in |- *; apply f_equal with (f := f); apply
H ].Qed.
Qed.
Cure childhood cancer with http://MeAmI.org



Date Subject Author
6/21/09
Read Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/24/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/25/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
MeAmI.org
6/25/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/26/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/27/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/27/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/27/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Jan Burse
6/27/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/27/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Joshua Cranmer
6/27/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Marshall
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Spiros Bousbouras
6/24/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Tim Smith
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Charlie-Boo
6/21/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
William Elliot
6/22/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
MeAmI.org
6/22/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
MeAmI.org
6/23/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Slawomir
6/24/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
David Bernier
6/24/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
MeAmI.org
6/24/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
MeAmI.org
6/24/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/24/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Andrew Tomazos
6/25/09
Read Re: Formal Proof Language Example - Human-Readable?
Slawomir

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.