(* Title: HoTT/tests/Test.thy Author: Josh Chen Date: Aug 2018 This is an old "test suite" from early implementations of the theory. It is not always guaranteed to be up to date, or reflect most recent versions of the theory. *) theory Test imports "../HoTT" begin text " A bunch of theorems and other statements for sanity-checking, as well as things that should be automatically simplified. Things that *should* be automated: - Checking that \A\ is a well-formed type, when writing things like \x : A\ and \A : U\. - Checking that the argument to a (dependent/non-dependent) function matches the type? Also the arguments to a pair? " declare[[unify_trace_simp, unify_trace_types, simp_trace, simp_trace_depth_limit=5]] \ \Turn on trace for unification and the simplifier, for debugging.\ section \\-type\ subsection \Typing functions\ text " Declaring \Prod_intro\ with the \intro\ attribute (in HoTT.thy) enables \standard\ to prove the following. " proposition assumes "A : U(i)" shows "\<^bold>\x. x: A \ A" by (routine lems: assms) proposition assumes "A : U(i)" and "A \ B" shows "\<^bold>\x. x : B \ A" proof - have "A \ A \ B \ A" using assms by simp moreover have "\<^bold>\x. x : A \ A" by (routine lems: assms) ultimately show "\<^bold>\x. x : B \ A" by simp qed proposition assumes "A : U(i)" and "B : U(i)" shows "\<^bold>\x y. x : A \ B \ A" by (routine lems: assms) subsection \Function application\ proposition assumes "a : A" shows "(\<^bold>\x. x)`a \ a" by (derive lems: assms) text "Currying:" lemma assumes "a : A" and "\x. x: A \ B(x): U(i)" shows "(\<^bold>\x y. y)`a \ \<^bold>\y. y" proof compute show "\x. x : A \ \<^bold>\y. y : B(x) \ B(x)" by (routine lems: assms) qed fact lemma "\A: U(i); B: U(i); a : A; b : B\ \ (\<^bold>\x y. y)`a`b \ b" by derive lemma "\A: U(i); a : A \ \ (\<^bold>\x y. f x y)`a \ \<^bold>\y. f a y" proof compute show "\x. \A: U(i); x: A\ \ \<^bold>\y. f x y: \y:B(x). C x y" proof oops lemma "\a : A; b : B(a); c : C(a)(b)\ \ (\<^bold>\x. \<^bold>\y. \<^bold>\z. f x y z)`a`b`c \ f a b c" oops subsection \Currying functions\ proposition curried_function_formation: fixes A B C assumes "A : U(i)" and "B: A \ U(i)" and "\x. C(x): B(x) \ U(i)" shows "\x:A. \y:B(x). C x y : U(i)" by (routine lems: assms) proposition higher_order_currying_formation: assumes "A: U(i)" and "B: A \ U(i)" and "\x y. y: B(x) \ C(x)(y): U(i)" and "\x y z. z : C(x)(y) \ D(x)(y)(z): U(i)" shows "\x:A. \y:B(x). \z:C(x)(y). D(x)(y)(z): U(i)" by (routine lems: assms) lemma curried_type_judgment: assumes "A: U(i)" "B: A \ U(i)" "\x y. \x : A; y : B(x)\ \ f x y : C x y" shows "\<^bold>\x y. f x y : \x:A. \y:B(x). C x y" by (routine lems: assms) text " Polymorphic identity function is now trivial due to lambda expression polymorphism. (Was more involved in previous monomorphic incarnations.) " definition Id :: "Term" where "Id \ \<^bold>\x. x" lemma "\x: A\ \ Id`x \ x" unfolding Id_def by (compute, routine) section \Natural numbers\ text "Automatic proof methods recognize natural numbers." proposition "succ(succ(succ 0)): Nat" by routine end