From 9ea0e76f92383ab14859cd5857f5a3ef1acec2c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Josh Chen
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:26:37 +0200
Subject: pre-system upgrade commit

---
 HoTT_Theorems.thy | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 HoTT_Theorems.thy

(limited to 'HoTT_Theorems.thy')

diff --git a/HoTT_Theorems.thy b/HoTT_Theorems.thy
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bea3dfe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/HoTT_Theorems.thy
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+theory HoTT_Theorems
+  imports HoTT
+begin
+
+text "A bunch of theorems and other statements for sanity-checking, as well as things that should be automatically simplified."
+
+section \<open>Foundational stuff\<close>
+
+theorem "\<lbrakk>A : U; A \<equiv> B\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> B : U" by simp
+
+section \<open>Functions\<close>
+
+lemma "A : U \<Longrightarrow> \<^bold>\<lambda>x. x : A\<rightarrow>A"
+  by (rule Prod_intro)
+
+text "Note that there is no provision for declaring the type of bound variables outside of the scope of a lambda expression.
+Hence a statement like \<open>x : A\<close> is not needed (nor possible!) in the premises of the following lemma."
+
+lemma "\<lbrakk>A : U; A \<equiv> B\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> \<^bold>\<lambda>x. x : B\<rightarrow>A"
+proof -
+  assume
+    0: "A : U" and
+    1: "A \<equiv> B"
+  from 0 have 2: "\<^bold>\<lambda>x. x : A\<rightarrow>A" by (rule Prod_intro)
+  from 1 have 3: "A\<rightarrow>A \<equiv> B\<rightarrow>A" by simp
+  from 3 and 2 show "\<^bold>\<lambda>x. x : B\<rightarrow>A" by (rule equal_types)
+  qed
+
+lemma "\<lbrakk>A : U; B : U; x : A\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> \<^bold>\<lambda>y. x : B\<rightarrow>A"
+proof -
+assume 
+  1: "A : U" and 
+  2: "B : U" and 
+  3: "x : A"
+then show "\<^bold>\<lambda>y. x : B\<rightarrow>A"
+proof -
+from 3 have "\<^bold>\<lambda>y. x : B\<rightarrow>A" by (rule Prod_intro)
+qed
+qed
+
+lemma "\<lbrakk>A : U;  B : U\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> \<^bold>\<lambda>x. \<^bold>\<lambda>y. x : A\<rightarrow>B\<rightarrow>A"
+proof -
+  fix x
+  assume
+    "A : U" and
+    "B : U" and
+    "x : A"
+  then have "\<^bold>\<lambda>y. x : B\<rightarrow>A" by (rule Prod_intro)
+    
+qed
+
+section \<open>Nats\<close>
+
+text "Here's a dumb proof that 2 is a natural number."
+
+lemma "succ(succ 0) : Nat"
+proof -
+  have "0 : Nat" by (rule Nat_intro1)
+  from this have "(succ 0) : Nat" by (rule Nat_intro2)
+  thus "succ(succ 0) : Nat" by (rule Nat_intro2)
+qed
+
+text "We can of course iterate the above for as many applications of \<open>succ\<close> as we like.
+The next thing to do is to implement induction to automate such proofs.
+
+When we get more stuff working, I'd like to aim for formalizing the encode-decode method to be able to prove the only naturals are 0 and those obtained from it by \<open>succ\<close>."
+
+end
\ No newline at end of file
-- 
cgit v1.2.3

