|
|
|
|
@ -4,18 +4,72 @@ import NNG.MyNat.Addition
|
|
|
|
|
Game "NNG"
|
|
|
|
|
World "Proposition"
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
|
|
Title ""
|
|
|
|
|
Title "the `exact` tactic"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
open MyNat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
|
|
|
"
|
|
|
|
|
A Proposition is a true/false statement, like `2 + 2 = 4` or `2 + 2 = 5`.
|
|
|
|
|
Just like we can have concrete sets in Lean like `ℕ`, and abstract
|
|
|
|
|
sets called things like `X`, we can also have concrete propositions like
|
|
|
|
|
`2 + 2 = 5` and abstract propositions called things like `P`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mathematicians are very good at conflating a theorem with its proof.
|
|
|
|
|
They might say \"now use theorem 12 and we're done\". What they really
|
|
|
|
|
mean is \"now use the proof of theorem 12...\" (i.e. the fact that we proved
|
|
|
|
|
it already). Particularly problematic is the fact that mathematicians
|
|
|
|
|
use the word Proposition to mean \"a relatively straightforward statement
|
|
|
|
|
which is true\" and computer scientists use it to mean \"a statement of
|
|
|
|
|
arbitrary complexity, which might be true or false\". Computer scientists
|
|
|
|
|
are far more careful about distinguishing between a proposition and a proof.
|
|
|
|
|
For example: `x + 0 = x` is a proposition, and `add_zero x`
|
|
|
|
|
is its proof. The convention we'll use is capital letters for propositions
|
|
|
|
|
and small letters for proofs.
|
|
|
|
|
"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement
|
|
|
|
|
""
|
|
|
|
|
"If $P$ is true, and $P\\implies Q$ is also true, then $Q$ is true."
|
|
|
|
|
(P Q : Prop) (p : P) (h : P → Q) : Q := by
|
|
|
|
|
Hint
|
|
|
|
|
"
|
|
|
|
|
Here `P` is the true/false statement (the statement of proposition), and `p` is its proof.
|
|
|
|
|
It's like `P` being the set and `p` being the element. In fact computer scientists
|
|
|
|
|
sometimes think about the following analogy: propositions are like sets,
|
|
|
|
|
and their proofs are like their elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## What's going on in this world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're going to learn about manipulating propositions and proofs.
|
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, we don't need to learn a bunch of new tactics -- the
|
|
|
|
|
ones we just learnt (`exact`, `intro`, `have`, `apply`) will be perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The levels in proposition world are \"back to normal\", we're proving
|
|
|
|
|
theorems, not constructing elements of sets. Or are we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you delete the sorry below then your local context will look like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this situation, we have true/false statements $P$ and $Q$,
|
|
|
|
|
a proof $p$ of $P$, and $h$ is the hypothesis that $P\\implies Q$.
|
|
|
|
|
Our goal is to construct a proof of $Q$. It's clear what to do
|
|
|
|
|
*mathematically* to solve this goal, $P$ is true and $P$ implies $Q$
|
|
|
|
|
so $Q$ is true. But how to do it in Lean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adopting a point of view wholly unfamiliar to many mathematicians,
|
|
|
|
|
Lean interprets the hypothesis $h$ as a function from proofs
|
|
|
|
|
of $P$ to proofs of $Q$, so the rather surprising approach
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`exact h p`
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
works to close the goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that `exact h P` (with a capital P) won't work;
|
|
|
|
|
this is a common error I see from beginners. \"We're trying to solve `P`
|
|
|
|
|
so it's exactly `P`\". The goal states the *theorem*, your job is to
|
|
|
|
|
construct the *proof*. $P$ is not a proof of $P$, it's $p$ that is a proof of $P$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Lean, Propositions, like sets, are types, and proofs, like elements of sets, are terms.
|
|
|
|
|
"
|
|
|
|
|
exact h p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Eugster
3 years ago