theory CR
imports Lam_Funs
begin
text {* The Church-Rosser proof from Barendregt's book *}
lemma forget:
assumes asm: "x\<sharp>L"
shows "L[x::=P] = L"
using asm
proof (nominal_induct L avoiding: x P rule: lam.strong_induct)
case (Var z)
have "x\<sharp>Var z" by fact
thus "(Var z)[x::=P] = (Var z)" by (simp add: fresh_atm)
next
case (App M1 M2)
have "x\<sharp>App M1 M2" by fact
moreover
have ih1: "x\<sharp>M1 ==> M1[x::=P] = M1" by fact
moreover
have ih1: "x\<sharp>M2 ==> M2[x::=P] = M2" by fact
ultimately show "(App M1 M2)[x::=P] = (App M1 M2)" by simp
next
case (Lam z M)
have vc: "z\<sharp>x" "z\<sharp>P" by fact+
have ih: "x\<sharp>M ==> M[x::=P] = M" by fact
have asm: "x\<sharp>Lam [z].M" by fact
then have "x\<sharp>M" using vc by (simp add: fresh_atm abs_fresh)
then have "M[x::=P] = M" using ih by simp
then show "(Lam [z].M)[x::=P] = Lam [z].M" using vc by simp
qed
lemma forget_automatic:
assumes asm: "x\<sharp>L"
shows "L[x::=P] = L"
using asm
by (nominal_induct L avoiding: x P rule: lam.strong_induct)
(auto simp add: abs_fresh fresh_atm)
lemma fresh_fact:
fixes z::"name"
assumes asms: "z\<sharp>N" "z\<sharp>L"
shows "z\<sharp>(N[y::=L])"
using asms
proof (nominal_induct N avoiding: z y L rule: lam.strong_induct)
case (Var u)
have "z\<sharp>(Var u)" "z\<sharp>L" by fact+
thus "z\<sharp>((Var u)[y::=L])" by simp
next
case (App N1 N2)
have ih1: "[|z\<sharp>N1; z\<sharp>L|] ==> z\<sharp>N1[y::=L]" by fact
moreover
have ih2: "[|z\<sharp>N2; z\<sharp>L|] ==> z\<sharp>N2[y::=L]" by fact
moreover
have "z\<sharp>App N1 N2" "z\<sharp>L" by fact+
ultimately show "z\<sharp>((App N1 N2)[y::=L])" by simp
next
case (Lam u N1)
have vc: "u\<sharp>z" "u\<sharp>y" "u\<sharp>L" by fact+
have "z\<sharp>Lam [u].N1" by fact
hence "z\<sharp>N1" using vc by (simp add: abs_fresh fresh_atm)
moreover
have ih: "[|z\<sharp>N1; z\<sharp>L|] ==> z\<sharp>(N1[y::=L])" by fact
moreover
have "z\<sharp>L" by fact
ultimately show "z\<sharp>(Lam [u].N1)[y::=L]" using vc by (simp add: abs_fresh)
qed
lemma fresh_fact_automatic:
fixes z::"name"
assumes asms: "z\<sharp>N" "z\<sharp>L"
shows "z\<sharp>(N[y::=L])"
using asms
by (nominal_induct N avoiding: z y L rule: lam.strong_induct)
(auto simp add: abs_fresh fresh_atm)
lemma fresh_fact':
fixes a::"name"
assumes a: "a\<sharp>t2"
shows "a\<sharp>t1[a::=t2]"
using a
by (nominal_induct t1 avoiding: a t2 rule: lam.strong_induct)
(auto simp add: abs_fresh fresh_atm)
lemma substitution_lemma:
assumes a: "x≠y"
and b: "x\<sharp>L"
shows "M[x::=N][y::=L] = M[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]"
using a b
proof (nominal_induct M avoiding: x y N L rule: lam.strong_induct)
case (Var z)
have "x≠y" by fact
have "x\<sharp>L" by fact
show "Var z[x::=N][y::=L] = Var z[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" (is "?LHS = ?RHS")
proof -
{
assume "z=x"
have "(1)": "?LHS = N[y::=L]" using `z=x` by simp
have "(2)": "?RHS = N[y::=L]" using `z=x` `x≠y` by simp
from "(1)" "(2)" have "?LHS = ?RHS" by simp
}
moreover
{
assume "z=y" and "z≠x"
have "(1)": "?LHS = L" using `z≠x` `z=y` by simp
have "(2)": "?RHS = L[x::=N[y::=L]]" using `z=y` by simp
have "(3)": "L[x::=N[y::=L]] = L" using `x\<sharp>L` by (simp add: forget)
from "(1)" "(2)" "(3)" have "?LHS = ?RHS" by simp
}
moreover
{
assume "z≠x" and "z≠y"
have "(1)": "?LHS = Var z" using `z≠x` `z≠y` by simp
have "(2)": "?RHS = Var z" using `z≠x` `z≠y` by simp
from "(1)" "(2)" have "?LHS = ?RHS" by simp
}
ultimately show "?LHS = ?RHS" by blast
qed
next
case (Lam z M1)
have ih: "[|x≠y; x\<sharp>L|] ==> M1[x::=N][y::=L] = M1[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" by fact
have "x≠y" by fact
have "x\<sharp>L" by fact
have fs: "z\<sharp>x" "z\<sharp>y" "z\<sharp>N" "z\<sharp>L" by fact+
hence "z\<sharp>N[y::=L]" by (simp add: fresh_fact)
show "(Lam [z].M1)[x::=N][y::=L] = (Lam [z].M1)[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" (is "?LHS=?RHS")
proof -
have "?LHS = Lam [z].(M1[x::=N][y::=L])" using `z\<sharp>x` `z\<sharp>y` `z\<sharp>N` `z\<sharp>L` by simp
also from ih have "… = Lam [z].(M1[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]])" using `x≠y` `x\<sharp>L` by simp
also have "… = (Lam [z].(M1[y::=L]))[x::=N[y::=L]]" using `z\<sharp>x` `z\<sharp>N[y::=L]` by simp
also have "… = ?RHS" using `z\<sharp>y` `z\<sharp>L` by simp
finally show "?LHS = ?RHS" .
qed
next
case (App M1 M2)
thus "(App M1 M2)[x::=N][y::=L] = (App M1 M2)[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]" by simp
qed
lemma substitution_lemma_automatic:
assumes asm: "x≠y" "x\<sharp>L"
shows "M[x::=N][y::=L] = M[y::=L][x::=N[y::=L]]"
using asm
by (nominal_induct M avoiding: x y N L rule: lam.strong_induct)
(auto simp add: fresh_fact forget)
section {* Beta Reduction *}
inductive
"Beta" :: "lam=>lam=>bool" (" _ -->β _" [80,80] 80)
where
b1[intro]: "s1-->βs2 ==> (App s1 t)-->β(App s2 t)"
| b2[intro]: "s1-->βs2 ==> (App t s1)-->β(App t s2)"
| b3[intro]: "s1-->βs2 ==> (Lam [a].s1)-->β (Lam [a].s2)"
| b4[intro]: "a\<sharp>s2 ==> (App (Lam [a].s1) s2)-->β(s1[a::=s2])"
equivariance Beta
nominal_inductive Beta
by (simp_all add: abs_fresh fresh_fact')
inductive
"Beta_star" :: "lam=>lam=>bool" (" _ -->β* _" [80,80] 80)
where
bs1[intro, simp]: "M -->β* M"
| bs2[intro]: "[|M1-->β* M2; M2 -->β M3|] ==> M1 -->β* M3"
equivariance Beta_star
lemma beta_star_trans:
assumes a1: "M1-->β* M2"
and a2: "M2-->β* M3"
shows "M1 -->β* M3"
using a2 a1
by (induct) (auto)
section {* One-Reduction *}
inductive
One :: "lam=>lam=>bool" (" _ -->1 _" [80,80] 80)
where
o1[intro!]: "M-->1M"
| o2[simp,intro!]: "[|t1-->1t2;s1-->1s2|] ==> (App t1 s1)-->1(App t2 s2)"
| o3[simp,intro!]: "s1-->1s2 ==> (Lam [a].s1)-->1(Lam [a].s2)"
| o4[simp,intro!]: "[|a\<sharp>(s1,s2); s1-->1s2;t1-->1t2|] ==> (App (Lam [a].t1) s1)-->1(t2[a::=s2])"
equivariance One
nominal_inductive One
by (simp_all add: abs_fresh fresh_fact')
inductive
"One_star" :: "lam=>lam=>bool" (" _ -->1* _" [80,80] 80)
where
os1[intro, simp]: "M -->1* M"
| os2[intro]: "[|M1-->1* M2; M2 -->1 M3|] ==> M1 -->1* M3"
equivariance One_star
lemma one_star_trans:
assumes a1: "M1-->1* M2"
and a2: "M2-->1* M3"
shows "M1-->1* M3"
using a2 a1
by (induct) (auto)
lemma one_fresh_preserv:
fixes a :: "name"
assumes a: "t-->1s"
and b: "a\<sharp>t"
shows "a\<sharp>s"
using a b
proof (induct)
case o1 thus ?case by simp
next
case o2 thus ?case by simp
next
case (o3 s1 s2 c)
have ih: "a\<sharp>s1 ==> a\<sharp>s2" by fact
have c: "a\<sharp>Lam [c].s1" by fact
show ?case
proof (cases "a=c")
assume "a=c" thus "a\<sharp>Lam [c].s2" by (simp add: abs_fresh)
next
assume d: "a≠c"
with c have "a\<sharp>s1" by (simp add: abs_fresh)
hence "a\<sharp>s2" using ih by simp
thus "a\<sharp>Lam [c].s2" using d by (simp add: abs_fresh)
qed
next
case (o4 c t1 t2 s1 s2)
have i1: "a\<sharp>t1 ==> a\<sharp>t2" by fact
have i2: "a\<sharp>s1 ==> a\<sharp>s2" by fact
have as: "a\<sharp>App (Lam [c].s1) t1" by fact
hence c1: "a\<sharp>Lam [c].s1" and c2: "a\<sharp>t1" by (simp add: fresh_prod)+
from c2 i1 have c3: "a\<sharp>t2" by simp
show "a\<sharp>s2[c::=t2]"
proof (cases "a=c")
assume "a=c"
thus "a\<sharp>s2[c::=t2]" using c3 by (simp add: fresh_fact')
next
assume d1: "a≠c"
from c1 d1 have "a\<sharp>s1" by (simp add: abs_fresh)
hence "a\<sharp>s2" using i2 by simp
thus "a\<sharp>s2[c::=t2]" using c3 by (simp add: fresh_fact)
qed
qed
lemma one_fresh_preserv_automatic:
fixes a :: "name"
assumes a: "t-->1s"
and b: "a\<sharp>t"
shows "a\<sharp>s"
using a b
apply(nominal_induct avoiding: a rule: One.strong_induct)
apply(auto simp add: abs_fresh fresh_atm fresh_fact)
done
lemma subst_rename:
assumes a: "c\<sharp>t1"
shows "t1[a::=t2] = ([(c,a)]•t1)[c::=t2]"
using a
by (nominal_induct t1 avoiding: a c t2 rule: lam.strong_induct)
(auto simp add: calc_atm fresh_atm abs_fresh)
lemma one_abs:
assumes a: "Lam [a].t-->1t'"
shows "∃t''. t'=Lam [a].t'' ∧ t-->1t''"
proof -
have "a\<sharp>Lam [a].t" by (simp add: abs_fresh)
with a have "a\<sharp>t'" by (simp add: one_fresh_preserv)
with a show ?thesis
by (cases rule: One.strong_cases[where a="a" and aa="a"])
(auto simp add: lam.inject abs_fresh alpha)
qed
lemma one_app:
assumes a: "App t1 t2 -->1 t'"
shows "(∃s1 s2. t' = App s1 s2 ∧ t1 -->1 s1 ∧ t2 -->1 s2) ∨
(∃a s s1 s2. t1 = Lam [a].s ∧ t' = s1[a::=s2] ∧ s -->1 s1 ∧ t2 -->1 s2 ∧ a\<sharp>(t2,s2))"
using a by (erule_tac One.cases) (auto simp add: lam.inject)
lemma one_red:
assumes a: "App (Lam [a].t1) t2 -->1 M" "a\<sharp>(t2,M)"
shows "(∃s1 s2. M = App (Lam [a].s1) s2 ∧ t1 -->1 s1 ∧ t2 -->1 s2) ∨
(∃s1 s2. M = s1[a::=s2] ∧ t1 -->1 s1 ∧ t2 -->1 s2)"
using a
by (cases rule: One.strong_cases [where a="a" and aa="a"])
(auto dest: one_abs simp add: lam.inject abs_fresh alpha fresh_prod)
text {* first case in Lemma 3.2.4*}
lemma one_subst_aux:
assumes a: "N-->1N'"
shows "M[x::=N] -->1 M[x::=N']"
using a
proof (nominal_induct M avoiding: x N N' rule: lam.strong_induct)
case (Var y)
thus "Var y[x::=N] -->1 Var y[x::=N']" by (cases "x=y") auto
next
case (App P Q)
thus "(App P Q)[x::=N] -->1 (App P Q)[x::=N']" using o2 by simp
next
case (Lam y P)
thus "(Lam [y].P)[x::=N] -->1 (Lam [y].P)[x::=N']" using o3 by simp
qed
lemma one_subst_aux_automatic:
assumes a: "N-->1N'"
shows "M[x::=N] -->1 M[x::=N']"
using a
by (nominal_induct M avoiding: x N N' rule: lam.strong_induct)
(auto simp add: fresh_prod fresh_atm)
lemma one_subst:
assumes a: "M-->1M'"
and b: "N-->1N'"
shows "M[x::=N]-->1M'[x::=N']"
using a b
proof (nominal_induct M M' avoiding: N N' x rule: One.strong_induct)
case (o1 M)
thus ?case by (simp add: one_subst_aux)
next
case (o2 M1 M2 N1 N2)
thus ?case by simp
next
case (o3 a M1 M2)
thus ?case by simp
next
case (o4 a N1 N2 M1 M2 N N' x)
have vc: "a\<sharp>N" "a\<sharp>N'" "a\<sharp>x" "a\<sharp>N1" "a\<sharp>N2" by fact+
have asm: "N-->1N'" by fact
show ?case
proof -
have "(App (Lam [a].M1) N1)[x::=N] = App (Lam [a].(M1[x::=N])) (N1[x::=N])" using vc by simp
moreover have "App (Lam [a].(M1[x::=N])) (N1[x::=N]) -->1 M2[x::=N'][a::=N2[x::=N']]"
using o4 asm by (simp add: fresh_fact)
moreover have "M2[x::=N'][a::=N2[x::=N']] = M2[a::=N2][x::=N']"
using vc by (simp add: substitution_lemma fresh_atm)
ultimately show "(App (Lam [a].M1) N1)[x::=N] -->1 M2[a::=N2][x::=N']" by simp
qed
qed
lemma one_subst_automatic:
assumes a: "M-->1M'"
and b: "N-->1N'"
shows "M[x::=N]-->1M'[x::=N']"
using a b
by (nominal_induct M M' avoiding: N N' x rule: One.strong_induct)
(auto simp add: one_subst_aux substitution_lemma fresh_atm fresh_fact)
lemma diamond[rule_format]:
fixes M :: "lam"
and M1:: "lam"
assumes a: "M-->1M1"
and b: "M-->1M2"
shows "∃M3. M1-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3"
using a b
proof (nominal_induct avoiding: M1 M2 rule: One.strong_induct)
case (o1 M)
thus "∃M3. M-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" by blast
next
case (o4 x Q Q' P P')
have vc: "x\<sharp>Q" "x\<sharp>Q'" "x\<sharp>M2" by fact+
have i1: "!!M2. Q -->1M2 ==> (∃M3. Q'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3)" by fact
have i2: "!!M2. P -->1M2 ==> (∃M3. P'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3)" by fact
have "App (Lam [x].P) Q -->1 M2" by fact
hence "(∃P' Q'. M2 = App (Lam [x].P') Q' ∧ P-->1P' ∧ Q-->1Q') ∨
(∃P' Q'. M2 = P'[x::=Q'] ∧ P-->1P' ∧ Q-->1Q')" using vc by (simp add: one_red)
moreover
{ assume "∃P' Q'. M2 = App (Lam [x].P') Q' ∧ P-->1P' ∧ Q-->1Q'"
then obtain P'' and Q'' where
b1: "M2=App (Lam [x].P'') Q''" and b2: "P-->1P''" and b3: "Q-->1Q''" by blast
from b2 i2 have "(∃M3. P'-->1M3 ∧ P''-->1M3)" by simp
then obtain P''' where
c1: "P'-->1P'''" and c2: "P''-->1P'''" by force
from b3 i1 have "(∃M3. Q'-->1M3 ∧ Q''-->1M3)" by simp
then obtain Q''' where
d1: "Q'-->1Q'''" and d2: "Q''-->1Q'''" by force
from c1 c2 d1 d2
have "P'[x::=Q']-->1P'''[x::=Q'''] ∧ App (Lam [x].P'') Q'' -->1 P'''[x::=Q''']"
using vc b3 by (auto simp add: one_subst one_fresh_preserv)
hence "∃M3. P'[x::=Q']-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" using b1 by blast
}
moreover
{ assume "∃P' Q'. M2 = P'[x::=Q'] ∧ P-->1P' ∧ Q-->1Q'"
then obtain P'' Q'' where
b1: "M2=P''[x::=Q'']" and b2: "P-->1P''" and b3: "Q-->1Q''" by blast
from b2 i2 have "(∃M3. P'-->1M3 ∧ P''-->1M3)" by simp
then obtain P''' where
c1: "P'-->1P'''" and c2: "P''-->1P'''" by blast
from b3 i1 have "(∃M3. Q'-->1M3 ∧ Q''-->1M3)" by simp
then obtain Q''' where
d1: "Q'-->1Q'''" and d2: "Q''-->1Q'''" by blast
from c1 c2 d1 d2
have "P'[x::=Q']-->1P'''[x::=Q'''] ∧ P''[x::=Q'']-->1P'''[x::=Q''']"
by (force simp add: one_subst)
hence "∃M3. P'[x::=Q']-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" using b1 by blast
}
ultimately show "∃M3. P'[x::=Q']-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" by blast
next
case (o2 P P' Q Q')
have i0: "P-->1P'" by fact
have i0': "Q-->1Q'" by fact
have i1: "!!M2. Q -->1M2 ==> (∃M3. Q'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3)" by fact
have i2: "!!M2. P -->1M2 ==> (∃M3. P'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3)" by fact
assume "App P Q -->1 M2"
hence "(∃P'' Q''. M2 = App P'' Q'' ∧ P-->1P'' ∧ Q-->1Q'') ∨
(∃x P' P'' Q'. P = Lam [x].P' ∧ M2 = P''[x::=Q'] ∧ P'-->1 P'' ∧ Q-->1Q' ∧ x\<sharp>(Q,Q'))"
by (simp add: one_app[simplified])
moreover
{ assume "∃P'' Q''. M2 = App P'' Q'' ∧ P-->1P'' ∧ Q-->1Q''"
then obtain P'' and Q'' where
b1: "M2=App P'' Q''" and b2: "P-->1P''" and b3: "Q-->1Q''" by blast
from b2 i2 have "(∃M3. P'-->1M3 ∧ P''-->1M3)" by simp
then obtain P''' where
c1: "P'-->1P'''" and c2: "P''-->1P'''" by blast
from b3 i1 have "∃M3. Q'-->1M3 ∧ Q''-->1M3" by simp
then obtain Q''' where
d1: "Q'-->1Q'''" and d2: "Q''-->1Q'''" by blast
from c1 c2 d1 d2
have "App P' Q'-->1App P''' Q''' ∧ App P'' Q'' -->1 App P''' Q'''" by blast
hence "∃M3. App P' Q'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" using b1 by blast
}
moreover
{ assume "∃x P1 P'' Q''. P = Lam [x].P1 ∧ M2 = P''[x::=Q''] ∧ P1-->1 P'' ∧ Q-->1Q'' ∧ x\<sharp>(Q,Q'')"
then obtain x P1 P1'' Q'' where
b0: "P = Lam [x].P1" and b1: "M2 = P1''[x::=Q'']" and
b2: "P1-->1P1''" and b3: "Q-->1Q''" and vc: "x\<sharp>(Q,Q'')" by blast
from b0 i0 have "∃P1'. P'=Lam [x].P1' ∧ P1-->1P1'" by (simp add: one_abs)
then obtain P1' where g1: "P'=Lam [x].P1'" and g2: "P1-->1P1'" by blast
from g1 b0 b2 i2 have "(∃M3. (Lam [x].P1')-->1M3 ∧ (Lam [x].P1'')-->1M3)" by simp
then obtain P1''' where
c1: "(Lam [x].P1')-->1P1'''" and c2: "(Lam [x].P1'')-->1P1'''" by blast
from c1 have "∃R1. P1'''=Lam [x].R1 ∧ P1'-->1R1" by (simp add: one_abs)
then obtain R1 where r1: "P1'''=Lam [x].R1" and r2: "P1'-->1R1" by blast
from c2 have "∃R2. P1'''=Lam [x].R2 ∧ P1''-->1R2" by (simp add: one_abs)
then obtain R2 where r3: "P1'''=Lam [x].R2" and r4: "P1''-->1R2" by blast
from r1 r3 have r5: "R1=R2" by (simp add: lam.inject alpha)
from b3 i1 have "(∃M3. Q'-->1M3 ∧ Q''-->1M3)" by simp
then obtain Q''' where
d1: "Q'-->1Q'''" and d2: "Q''-->1Q'''" by blast
from g1 r2 d1 r4 r5 d2
have "App P' Q'-->1R1[x::=Q'''] ∧ P1''[x::=Q'']-->1R1[x::=Q''']"
using vc i0' by (simp add: one_subst one_fresh_preserv)
hence "∃M3. App P' Q'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" using b1 by blast
}
ultimately show "∃M3. App P' Q'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" by blast
next
case (o3 P P' x)
have i1: "P-->1P'" by fact
have i2: "!!M2. P -->1M2 ==> (∃M3. P'-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3)" by fact
have "(Lam [x].P)-->1 M2" by fact
hence "∃P''. M2=Lam [x].P'' ∧ P-->1P''" by (simp add: one_abs)
then obtain P'' where b1: "M2=Lam [x].P''" and b2: "P-->1P''" by blast
from i2 b1 b2 have "∃M3. (Lam [x].P')-->1M3 ∧ (Lam [x].P'')-->1M3" by blast
then obtain M3 where c1: "(Lam [x].P')-->1M3" and c2: "(Lam [x].P'')-->1M3" by blast
from c1 have "∃R1. M3=Lam [x].R1 ∧ P'-->1R1" by (simp add: one_abs)
then obtain R1 where r1: "M3=Lam [x].R1" and r2: "P'-->1R1" by blast
from c2 have "∃R2. M3=Lam [x].R2 ∧ P''-->1R2" by (simp add: one_abs)
then obtain R2 where r3: "M3=Lam [x].R2" and r4: "P''-->1R2" by blast
from r1 r3 have r5: "R1=R2" by (simp add: lam.inject alpha)
from r2 r4 have "(Lam [x].P')-->1(Lam [x].R1) ∧ (Lam [x].P'')-->1(Lam [x].R2)"
by (simp add: one_subst)
thus "∃M3. (Lam [x].P')-->1M3 ∧ M2-->1M3" using b1 r5 by blast
qed
lemma one_lam_cong:
assumes a: "t1-->β*t2"
shows "(Lam [a].t1)-->β*(Lam [a].t2)"
using a
proof induct
case bs1 thus ?case by simp
next
case (bs2 y z)
thus ?case by (blast dest: b3)
qed
lemma one_app_congL:
assumes a: "t1-->β*t2"
shows "App t1 s-->β* App t2 s"
using a
proof induct
case bs1 thus ?case by simp
next
case bs2 thus ?case by (blast dest: b1)
qed
lemma one_app_congR:
assumes a: "t1-->β*t2"
shows "App s t1 -->β* App s t2"
using a
proof induct
case bs1 thus ?case by simp
next
case bs2 thus ?case by (blast dest: b2)
qed
lemma one_app_cong:
assumes a1: "t1-->β*t2"
and a2: "s1-->β*s2"
shows "App t1 s1-->β* App t2 s2"
proof -
have "App t1 s1 -->β* App t2 s1" using a1 by (rule one_app_congL)
moreover
have "App t2 s1 -->β* App t2 s2" using a2 by (rule one_app_congR)
ultimately show ?thesis by (rule beta_star_trans)
qed
lemma one_beta_star:
assumes a: "(t1-->1t2)"
shows "(t1-->β*t2)"
using a
proof(nominal_induct rule: One.strong_induct)
case o1 thus ?case by simp
next
case o2 thus ?case by (blast intro!: one_app_cong)
next
case o3 thus ?case by (blast intro!: one_lam_cong)
next
case (o4 a s1 s2 t1 t2)
have vc: "a\<sharp>s1" "a\<sharp>s2" by fact+
have a1: "t1-->β*t2" and a2: "s1-->β*s2" by fact+
have c1: "(App (Lam [a].t2) s2) -->β (t2 [a::= s2])" using vc by (simp add: b4)
from a1 a2 have c2: "App (Lam [a].t1 ) s1 -->β* App (Lam [a].t2 ) s2"
by (blast intro!: one_app_cong one_lam_cong)
show ?case using c2 c1 by (blast intro: beta_star_trans)
qed
lemma one_star_lam_cong:
assumes a: "t1-->1*t2"
shows "(Lam [a].t1)-->1* (Lam [a].t2)"
using a
proof induct
case os1 thus ?case by simp
next
case os2 thus ?case by (blast intro: one_star_trans)
qed
lemma one_star_app_congL:
assumes a: "t1-->1*t2"
shows "App t1 s-->1* App t2 s"
using a
proof induct
case os1 thus ?case by simp
next
case os2 thus ?case by (blast intro: one_star_trans)
qed
lemma one_star_app_congR:
assumes a: "t1-->1*t2"
shows "App s t1 -->1* App s t2"
using a
proof induct
case os1 thus ?case by simp
next
case os2 thus ?case by (blast intro: one_star_trans)
qed
lemma beta_one_star:
assumes a: "t1-->βt2"
shows "t1-->1*t2"
using a
proof(induct)
case b1 thus ?case by (blast intro!: one_star_app_congL)
next
case b2 thus ?case by (blast intro!: one_star_app_congR)
next
case b3 thus ?case by (blast intro!: one_star_lam_cong)
next
case b4 thus ?case by auto
qed
lemma trans_closure:
shows "(M1-->1*M2) = (M1-->β*M2)"
proof
assume "M1 -->1* M2"
then show "M1-->β*M2"
proof induct
case (os1 M1) thus "M1-->β*M1" by simp
next
case (os2 M1 M2 M3)
have "M2-->1M3" by fact
then have "M2-->β*M3" by (rule one_beta_star)
moreover have "M1-->β*M2" by fact
ultimately show "M1-->β*M3" by (auto intro: beta_star_trans)
qed
next
assume "M1 -->β* M2"
then show "M1-->1*M2"
proof induct
case (bs1 M1) thus "M1-->1*M1" by simp
next
case (bs2 M1 M2 M3)
have "M2-->βM3" by fact
then have "M2-->1*M3" by (rule beta_one_star)
moreover have "M1-->1*M2" by fact
ultimately show "M1-->1*M3" by (auto intro: one_star_trans)
qed
qed
lemma cr_one:
assumes a: "t-->1*t1"
and b: "t-->1t2"
shows "∃t3. t1-->1t3 ∧ t2-->1*t3"
using a b
proof (induct arbitrary: t2)
case os1 thus ?case by force
next
case (os2 t s1 s2 t2)
have b: "s1 -->1 s2" by fact
have h: "!!t2. t -->1 t2 ==> (∃t3. s1 -->1 t3 ∧ t2 -->1* t3)" by fact
have c: "t -->1 t2" by fact
show "∃t3. s2 -->1 t3 ∧ t2 -->1* t3"
proof -
from c h have "∃t3. s1 -->1 t3 ∧ t2 -->1* t3" by blast
then obtain t3 where c1: "s1 -->1 t3" and c2: "t2 -->1* t3" by blast
have "∃t4. s2 -->1 t4 ∧ t3 -->1 t4" using b c1 by (blast intro: diamond)
thus ?thesis using c2 by (blast intro: one_star_trans)
qed
qed
lemma cr_one_star:
assumes a: "t-->1*t2"
and b: "t-->1*t1"
shows "∃t3. t1-->1*t3∧t2-->1*t3"
using a b
proof (induct arbitrary: t1)
case (os1 t) then show ?case by force
next
case (os2 t s1 s2 t1)
have c: "t -->1* s1" by fact
have c': "t -->1* t1" by fact
have d: "s1 -->1 s2" by fact
have "t -->1* t1 ==> (∃t3. t1 -->1* t3 ∧ s1 -->1* t3)" by fact
then obtain t3 where f1: "t1 -->1* t3"
and f2: "s1 -->1* t3" using c' by blast
from cr_one d f2 have "∃t4. t3-->1t4 ∧ s2-->1*t4" by blast
then obtain t4 where g1: "t3-->1t4"
and g2: "s2-->1*t4" by blast
have "t1-->1*t4" using f1 g1 by (blast intro: one_star_trans)
thus ?case using g2 by blast
qed
lemma cr_beta_star:
assumes a1: "t-->β*t1"
and a2: "t-->β*t2"
shows "∃t3. t1-->β*t3∧t2-->β*t3"
proof -
from a1 have "t-->1*t1" by (simp only: trans_closure)
moreover
from a2 have "t-->1*t2" by (simp only: trans_closure)
ultimately have "∃t3. t1-->1*t3 ∧ t2-->1*t3" by (blast intro: cr_one_star)
then obtain t3 where "t1-->1*t3" and "t2-->1*t3" by blast
hence "t1-->β*t3" and "t2-->β*t3" by (simp_all only: trans_closure)
then show "∃t3. t1-->β*t3∧t2-->β*t3" by blast
qed
end