(* Title: HOL/Proofs/Extraction/Warshall.thy
Author: Stefan Berghofer, TU Muenchen
*)
section ‹Warshall
's algorithm\
theory Warshall
imports "HOL-Library.Realizers"
begin
text ‹
Derivation of Warshall
's algorithm using program extraction,
based on Berger, Schwichtenberg
and Seisenberger
🍋‹"Berger-JAR-2001"›.
›
datatype b = T | F
primrec is_path
' :: "('a
==> 'a \ b) \ 'a
==> 'a list \ 'a
==> bool
"
where
"is_path' r x [] z \ r x z = T"
|
"is_path' r x (y # ys) z \ r x y = T \ is_path' r y ys z"
definition is_path ::
"(nat \ nat \ b) \ (nat * nat list * nat) \ nat \ nat \ nat \ bool"
where "is_path r p i j k \
fst p = j
∧ snd (snd p) = k
∧
list_all (λx. x < i) (fst (snd p))
∧
is_path
' r (fst p) (fst (snd p)) (snd (snd p))"
definition conc ::
"'a \ 'a list \ 'a \ 'a \ 'a list \ 'a \ 'a \ 'a list * 'a"
where "conc p q = (fst p, fst (snd p) @ fst q # fst (snd q), snd (snd q))"
theorem is_path
'_snoc [simp]: "\x. is_path' r x (ys @ [y]) z = (is_path
' r x ys y \ r y z = T)"
by (induct ys) simp+
theorem list_all_scoc [simp]:
"list_all P (xs @ [x]) \ P x \ list_all P xs"
by (induct xs) (simp+, iprover)
theorem list_all_lemma:
"list_all P xs \ (\x. P x \ Q x) \ list_all Q xs"
proof -
assume PQ:
"\x. P x \ Q x"
show "list_all P xs \ list_all Q xs"
proof (induct xs)
case Nil
show ?
case by simp
next
case (Cons y ys)
then have Py:
"P y" by simp
from Cons
have Pys:
"list_all P ys" by simp
show ?
case
by simp (rule conjI PQ Py Cons Pys)+
qed
qed
theorem lemma1:
"\p. is_path r p i j k \ is_path r p (Suc i) j k"
unfolding is_path_def
apply (simp cong add: conj_cong add: split_paired_all)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (erule list_all_lemma)
apply simp
done
theorem lemma2:
"\p. is_path r p 0 j k \ r j k = T"
unfolding is_path_def
apply (simp cong add: conj_cong add: split_paired_all)
apply (case_tac a)
apply simp_all
done
theorem is_path
'_conc: "is_path' r j xs i
==> is_path
' r i ys k \
is_path
' r j (xs @ i # ys) k"
proof -
assume pys:
"is_path' r i ys k"
show "\j. is_path' r j xs i \ is_path' r j (xs @ i # ys) k"
proof (induct xs)
case (Nil j)
then have "r j i = T" by simp
with pys
show ?
case by simp
next
case (Cons z zs j)
then have jzr:
"r j z = T" by simp
from Cons
have pzs:
"is_path' r z zs i" by simp
show ?
case
by simp (rule conjI jzr Cons pzs)+
qed
qed
theorem lemma3:
"\p q. is_path r p i j i \ is_path r q i i k \
is_path r (conc p q) (Suc i) j k
"
apply (unfold is_path_def conc_def)
apply (simp cong add: conj_cong add: split_paired_all)
apply (erule conjE)+
apply (rule conjI)
apply (erule list_all_lemma)
apply simp
apply (rule conjI)
apply (erule list_all_lemma)
apply simp
apply (rule is_path
'_conc)
apply assumption+
done
theorem lemma5:
"\p. is_path r p (Suc i) j k \ \ is_path r p i j k \
(
∃q. is_path r q i j i)
∧ (
∃q
'. is_path r q' i i k)
"
proof (simp cong add: conj_cong add: split_paired_all is_path_def, (erule conjE)+)
fix xs
assume asms:
"list_all (\x. x < Suc i) xs"
"is_path' r j xs k"
"\ list_all (\x. x < i) xs"
show "(\ys. list_all (\x. x < i) ys \ is_path' r j ys i) \
(
∃ys. list_all (λx. x < i) ys
∧ is_path
' r i ys k)"
proof
have "\j. list_all (\x. x < Suc i) xs \ is_path' r j xs k \
¬ list_all (λx. x < i) xs
==>
∃ys. list_all (λx. x < i) ys
∧ is_path
' r j ys i" (is "PROP ?ih xs")
proof (induct xs)
case Nil
then show ?
case by simp
next
case (Cons a as j)
show ?
case
proof (cases
"a=i")
case True
show ?thesis
proof
from True
and Cons
have "r j i = T" by simp
then show "list_all (\x. x < i) [] \ is_path' r j [] i" by simp
qed
next
case False
have "PROP ?ih as" by (rule Cons)
then obtain ys
where ys:
"list_all (\x. x < i) ys \ is_path' r a ys i"
proof
from Cons
show "list_all (\x. x < Suc i) as" by simp
from Cons
show "is_path' r a as k" by simp
from Cons
and False
show "\ list_all (\x. x < i) as" by (simp)
qed
show ?thesis
proof
from Cons False ys
show "list_all (\x. x is_path' r j (a#ys) i" by simp
qed
qed
qed
from this asms
show "\ys. list_all (\x. x < i) ys \ is_path' r j ys i" .
have "\k. list_all (\x. x < Suc i) xs \ is_path' r j xs k \
¬ list_all (λx. x < i) xs
==>
∃ys. list_all (λx. x < i) ys
∧ is_path
' r i ys k" (is "PROP ?ih xs")
proof (induct xs rule: rev_induct)
case Nil
then show ?
case by simp
next
case (snoc a as k)
show ?
case
proof (cases
"a=i")
case True
show ?thesis
proof
from True
and snoc
have "r i k = T" by simp
then show "list_all (\x. x < i) [] \ is_path' r i [] k" by simp
qed
next
case False
have "PROP ?ih as" by (rule snoc)
then obtain ys
where ys:
"list_all (\x. x < i) ys \ is_path' r i ys a"
proof
from snoc
show "list_all (\x. x < Suc i) as" by simp
from snoc
show "is_path' r j as a" by simp
from snoc
and False
show "\ list_all (\x. x < i) as" by simp
qed
show ?thesis
proof
from snoc False ys
show "list_all (\x. x < i) (ys @ [a]) \ is_path' r i (ys @ [a]) k"
by simp
qed
qed
qed
from this asms
show "\ys. list_all (\x. x < i) ys \ is_path' r i ys k" .
qed
qed
theorem lemma5
':
"\p. is_path r p (Suc i) j k \ \ is_path r p i j k \
¬ (
∀q.
¬ is_path r q i j i)
∧ ¬ (
∀q
'. \ is_path r q' i i k)
"
by (iprover dest: lemma5)
theorem warshall:
"\j k. \ (\p. is_path r p i j k) \ (\p. is_path r p i j k)"
proof (induct i)
case (0 j k)
show ?
case
proof (cases
"r j k")
assume "r j k = T"
then have "is_path r (j, [], k) 0 j k"
by (simp add: is_path_def)
then have "\p. is_path r p 0 j k" ..
then show ?thesis ..
next
assume "r j k = F"
then have "r j k \ T" by simp
then have "\ (\p. is_path r p 0 j k)"
by (iprover dest: lemma2)
then show ?thesis ..
qed
next
case (Suc i j k)
then show ?
case
proof
assume h1:
"\ (\p. is_path r p i j k)"
from Suc
show ?
case
proof
assume "\ (\p. is_path r p i j i)"
with h1
have "\ (\p. is_path r p (Suc i) j k)"
by (iprover dest: lemma5
')
then show ?
case ..
next
assume "\p. is_path r p i j i"
then obtain p
where h2:
"is_path r p i j i" ..
from Suc
show ?
case
proof
assume "\ (\p. is_path r p i i k)"
with h1
have "\ (\p. is_path r p (Suc i) j k)"
by (iprover dest: lemma5
')
then show ?
case ..
next
assume "\q. is_path r q i i k"
then obtain q
where "is_path r q i i k" ..
with h2
have "is_path r (conc p q) (Suc i) j k"
by (rule lemma3)
then have "\pq. is_path r pq (Suc i) j k" ..
then show ?
case ..
qed
qed
next
assume "\p. is_path r p i j k"
then have "\p. is_path r p (Suc i) j k"
by (iprover intro: lemma1)
then show ?
case ..
qed
qed
extract warshall
text ‹
The program extracted
from the above
proof looks as follows
@{
thm [display, eta_contract=false] warshall_def [no_vars]}
The corresponding correctness
theorem is
@{
thm [display] warshall_correctness [no_vars]}
›
ML_val
"@{code warshall}"
end
