终止检查无法证明 ∃-even′ : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] ( 2 * m ≡ n) → even n
Termination checking failed to prove ∃-even′ : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] ( 2 * m ≡ n) → even n
PLFA 练习:如果我们在量词章节 (https://plfa.github.io/Quantifiers/) 中更“自然地”编写算术会怎样?
∃-even′ : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] ( 2 * m ≡ n) → even n
∃-odd′ : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] (2 * m + 1 ≡ n) → odd n
我已经把类型改正了。但是以下功能的终止检查失败:
dbl≡2* : ∀ n → n + n ≡ 2 * n
dbl≡2* n = cong (n +_) (sym (+-identityʳ n))
+-suc1 : ∀ (m : ℕ) → m + 1 ≡ suc m
+-suc1 m =
begin
m + 1
≡⟨⟩
m + (suc zero)
≡⟨ +-suc m zero ⟩
suc (m + zero)
≡⟨ cong suc (+-identityʳ m) ⟩
suc m
∎
help1 : ∀ m → 2 * m + 1 ≡ suc (m + m)
help1 m =
begin
2 * m + 1
≡⟨ sym ( cong (_+ 1) (dbl≡2* m) ) ⟩
m + m + 1 -- must use every rule
≡⟨ +-assoc m m 1 ⟩
m + (m + 1)
≡⟨ cong (m +_) (+-suc1 m) ⟩
m + suc m
≡⟨ +-suc m m ⟩
suc (m + m)
∎
∃-even′ ⟨ zero , refl ⟩ = even-zero
∃-even′ ⟨ suc m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-identityʳ m
| +-suc m m
= even-suc (∃-odd′ ⟨ (m) , help1 m ⟩)
∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-suc (2 * m) 0
| +-identityʳ m
| +-identityʳ (m + m)
| dbl≡2* m
= odd-suc (∃-even′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩)
对于普通版本,相同的相互递归定义可以正常工作。
∃-even : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] ( m * 2 ≡ n) → even n
∃-odd : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] (1 + m * 2 ≡ n) → odd n
∃-even ⟨ zero , refl ⟩ = even-zero
∃-even ⟨ suc x , refl ⟩ = even-suc (∃-odd ⟨ x , refl ⟩)
∃-odd ⟨ x , refl ⟩ = odd-suc (∃-even ⟨ x , refl ⟩)
∃-even′ ⟨ zero , refl ⟩ = even-zero
∃-even′ ⟨ suc m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-identityʳ m
| +-suc m m
= even-suc (∃-odd′ ⟨ m , help1 m ⟩)
∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-suc (2 * m) 0
| +-identityʳ m
| +-identityʳ (m + m)
| dbl≡2* m
= odd-suc (∃-even′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩)
你的递归调用是:
∃-even′ ⟨ suc m , refl ⟩
-> ∃-odd′ ⟨ m , help1 m ⟩
∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩
-> ∃-even′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩
在第一个中,suc m
-> m
减少,但 refl
-> help1 m
(表面上)增加。如果你将 refl
作为第二个参数传递给 ∃-odd′
,那么终止检查器会接受它,因为这意味着第二个参数保持不变,而第一个参数在一个完整的两个链中严格单调递减来电。
那么我们如何才能将第一个递归调用更改为 ∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩
?通过 sym (help1 m)
重写:
∃-even′ ( suc m , refl ) rewrite +-identityʳ m
| +-suc m m
| sym (help1 m)
= even-suc (∃-odd′ (m , refl))
此代码随后被终止检查器接受。
PLFA 练习:如果我们在量词章节 (https://plfa.github.io/Quantifiers/) 中更“自然地”编写算术会怎样?
∃-even′ : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] ( 2 * m ≡ n) → even n
∃-odd′ : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] (2 * m + 1 ≡ n) → odd n
我已经把类型改正了。但是以下功能的终止检查失败:
dbl≡2* : ∀ n → n + n ≡ 2 * n
dbl≡2* n = cong (n +_) (sym (+-identityʳ n))
+-suc1 : ∀ (m : ℕ) → m + 1 ≡ suc m
+-suc1 m =
begin
m + 1
≡⟨⟩
m + (suc zero)
≡⟨ +-suc m zero ⟩
suc (m + zero)
≡⟨ cong suc (+-identityʳ m) ⟩
suc m
∎
help1 : ∀ m → 2 * m + 1 ≡ suc (m + m)
help1 m =
begin
2 * m + 1
≡⟨ sym ( cong (_+ 1) (dbl≡2* m) ) ⟩
m + m + 1 -- must use every rule
≡⟨ +-assoc m m 1 ⟩
m + (m + 1)
≡⟨ cong (m +_) (+-suc1 m) ⟩
m + suc m
≡⟨ +-suc m m ⟩
suc (m + m)
∎
∃-even′ ⟨ zero , refl ⟩ = even-zero
∃-even′ ⟨ suc m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-identityʳ m
| +-suc m m
= even-suc (∃-odd′ ⟨ (m) , help1 m ⟩)
∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-suc (2 * m) 0
| +-identityʳ m
| +-identityʳ (m + m)
| dbl≡2* m
= odd-suc (∃-even′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩)
对于普通版本,相同的相互递归定义可以正常工作。
∃-even : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] ( m * 2 ≡ n) → even n
∃-odd : ∀ {n : ℕ} → ∃[ m ] (1 + m * 2 ≡ n) → odd n
∃-even ⟨ zero , refl ⟩ = even-zero
∃-even ⟨ suc x , refl ⟩ = even-suc (∃-odd ⟨ x , refl ⟩)
∃-odd ⟨ x , refl ⟩ = odd-suc (∃-even ⟨ x , refl ⟩)
∃-even′ ⟨ zero , refl ⟩ = even-zero
∃-even′ ⟨ suc m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-identityʳ m
| +-suc m m
= even-suc (∃-odd′ ⟨ m , help1 m ⟩)
∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩ rewrite +-suc (2 * m) 0
| +-identityʳ m
| +-identityʳ (m + m)
| dbl≡2* m
= odd-suc (∃-even′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩)
你的递归调用是:
∃-even′ ⟨ suc m , refl ⟩
->∃-odd′ ⟨ m , help1 m ⟩
∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩
->∃-even′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩
在第一个中,suc m
-> m
减少,但 refl
-> help1 m
(表面上)增加。如果你将 refl
作为第二个参数传递给 ∃-odd′
,那么终止检查器会接受它,因为这意味着第二个参数保持不变,而第一个参数在一个完整的两个链中严格单调递减来电。
那么我们如何才能将第一个递归调用更改为 ∃-odd′ ⟨ m , refl ⟩
?通过 sym (help1 m)
重写:
∃-even′ ( suc m , refl ) rewrite +-identityʳ m
| +-suc m m
| sym (help1 m)
= even-suc (∃-odd′ (m , refl))
此代码随后被终止检查器接受。