blob: 09975b034031a7b2a69a7e641615f0572ccb2704 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
|
(*
Title: ex/Methods.thy
Author: Joshua Chen
Date: 2018
Basic HoTT method usage examples.
*)
theory Methods
imports "../HoTT"
begin
lemma
assumes "A : U(i)" "B: A \<longrightarrow> U(i)" "\<And>x. x : A \<Longrightarrow> C x: B x \<longrightarrow> U(i)"
shows "\<Sum>x:A. \<Prod>y:B x. \<Sum>z:C x y. \<Prod>w:A. x =\<^sub>A w: U(i)"
by (routine add: assms)
\<comment> \<open>Correctly determines the type of the pair.\<close>
schematic_goal "\<lbrakk>A: U(i); B: U(i); a : A; b : B\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> <a, b> : ?A"
by routine
\<comment> \<open>Finds pair (too easy).\<close>
schematic_goal "\<lbrakk>A: U(i); B: U(i); a : A; b : B\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> ?x : A \<times> B"
apply (rule intros)
apply assumption+
done
\<comment> \<open>Function application. We still often have to explicitly specify types.\<close>
lemma "\<lbrakk>A: U i; a: A\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> (\<^bold>\<lambda>x. <x,0>)`a \<equiv> <a,0>"
proof compute
show "\<And>x. x: A \<Longrightarrow> <x,0>: A \<times> \<nat>" by routine
qed
text \<open>
The proof below takes a little more work than one might expect; it would be nice to have a one-line method or proof.
\<close>
lemma "\<lbrakk>A: U i; B: A \<longrightarrow> U i; a: A; b: B a\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> (\<^bold>\<lambda>x y. <x,y>)`a`b \<equiv> <a,b>"
proof (compute, routine)
show "\<lbrakk>A: U i; B: A \<longrightarrow> U i; a: A; b: B a\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> (\<^bold>\<lambda>y. <a,y>)`b \<equiv> <a,b>"
proof compute
show "\<And>b. \<lbrakk>A: U i; B: A \<longrightarrow> U i; a: A; b: B a\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow> <a,b>: \<Sum>x:A. B x" by routine
qed
qed
end
|
