Révision 267 CSL17/tech-report/arithmetic.tex
arithmetic.tex (revision 267) | ||
---|---|---|
26 | 26 |
|
27 | 27 |
Namely, in addition to usual axioms, our $\basic$ includes the following:\footnote{Later some of these will be redundant, for instance $\safe (u \times x) $ and $\safe (u \smsh v)$ are consequences of $\Sigma^\safe_i$-$\pind$, but $\safe (x + y)$ is not since both inputs are safe and so we cannot induct.} |
28 | 28 |
\begin{enumerate}[(a)] |
29 |
\item $\forall u^\normal. \safe(u) $ |
|
29 |
\item\label{ax:a} $\forall u^\normal. \safe(u) $
|
|
30 | 30 |
\item $\safe (0) $ |
31 | 31 |
\item $\forall x^\safe . \safe (\succ{} x) $ |
32 | 32 |
\item $\forall u^\safe .\safe(\hlf{u})$ |
33 | 33 |
\item $\forall x^\safe, y^\safe . \safe(x+y)$ |
34 | 34 |
\item $\forall u^\normal, x^\safe . \safe(u\times x) $ |
35 | 35 |
\item $\forall u^\normal , v^\normal . \safe (u \smsh v)$ |
36 |
\item $\forall u^\normal .\safe(|u|)$ |
|
36 |
\item\label{ax:h} $\forall u^\normal .\safe(|u|)$
|
|
37 | 37 |
\end{enumerate} |
38 | 38 |
%\[ |
39 | 39 |
%\begin{array}{l} |
... | ... | |
50 | 50 |
%\forall u^\normal .\safe(|x|) |
51 | 51 |
%\end{array} |
52 | 52 |
%\] |
53 |
\patrick{Actually I guess that we could replace the last one by $\forall x^\normal .\safe(|x|)$, as $|x|$ has smaller size as $x$? But I am not sure this would be needed anywhere. } |
|
53 |
%\patrick{Actually I guess that we could replace the last one by $\forall x^\normal .\safe(|x|)$, as $|x|$ has smaller size as $x$? But I am not sure this would be needed anywhere. }
|
|
54 | 54 |
|
55 | 55 |
Notice in particular that we have $\normal \subseteq \safe$. |
56 | 56 |
% |
... | ... | |
211 | 211 |
% |
212 | 212 |
%\anupam{In induction,for inductive cases, need $u\neq 0$ for $\succ 0$ case.} |
213 | 213 |
|
214 |
\anupam{Need vector $\vec y^\safe$?} |
|
214 |
%\anupam{Need vector $\vec y^\safe$?}
|
|
215 | 215 |
|
216 | 216 |
\begin{remark} |
217 | 217 |
Notice that $\rais$ looks similar to the $K$ rule from the calculus for the modal logic $S4$ (which subsumes necessitation), and indeed we believe there is a way to present these results in such a framework. |
... | ... | |
219 | 219 |
\end{remark} |
220 | 220 |
|
221 | 221 |
|
222 |
Let us consider some basic examples of theorems of our |
|
222 | 223 |
\begin{example} |
223 | 224 |
[Some basic theorems] |
224 | 225 |
We give proofs of the following, that are sometimes included as basic axioms, in $\arith^1$: |
225 |
\[ |
|
226 |
\begin{array}{l} |
|
227 |
\forall x^\safe . 0 \neq \succ{} (x) \\ |
|
228 |
\forall x^\safe , y^\safe . (\succ{} x = \succ{} y \cimp x = y) \\ |
|
229 |
%\forall x^\safe . (x = 0 \cor \exists y^\safe.\ x = \succ{} y ) \\ %% version 1: Anupam |
|
230 |
%\forall u^\normal . (u = 0 \cor \exists v^\normal.\ u = \succ{} v ) %% version 2: Patrick |
|
231 |
\forall u^\normal . (u = 0 \cor \exists y^\safe. u = \succ{} v ) \\ %% version 3: after discussion |
|
232 |
\forall u^\normal ,x^\safe . u \cdot \succ{} x = u + ux |
|
233 |
\end{array} |
|
234 |
\] |
|
235 |
\todo{Proof: Patrick? The final two should require PIND.} |
|
226 |
\begin{enumerate}[(i)] |
|
227 |
\item\label{item:i} $\forall x^\safe . 0 \neq \succ{} (x)$ |
|
228 |
\item\label{item:ii} $\forall x^\safe , y^\safe . (\succ{} x = \succ{} y \cimp x = y) $ |
|
229 |
\item\label{item:iii} $\forall u^\normal . (u = 0 \cor \exists y^\safe. u = \succ{} v ) $ |
|
230 |
\item\label{item:iv} $\forall u^\normal ,x^\safe . u \cdot \succ{} x = u + ux$ |
|
231 |
\end{enumerate} |
|
232 |
% \[ |
|
233 |
% \begin{array}{l} |
|
234 |
% \forall x^\safe . 0 \neq \succ{} (x) \\ |
|
235 |
% \forall x^\safe , y^\safe . (\succ{} x = \succ{} y \cimp x = y) \\ |
|
236 |
% %\forall x^\safe . (x = 0 \cor \exists y^\safe.\ x = \succ{} y ) \\ %% version 1: Anupam |
|
237 |
% %\forall u^\normal . (u = 0 \cor \exists v^\normal.\ u = \succ{} v ) %% version 2: Patrick |
|
238 |
% \forall u^\normal . (u = 0 \cor \exists y^\safe. u = \succ{} v ) \\ %% version 3: after discussion |
|
239 |
% \forall u^\normal ,x^\safe . u \cdot \succ{} x = u + ux |
|
240 |
% \end{array} |
|
241 |
% \] |
|
242 |
% \todo{Proof: Patrick? The final two should require PIND.} |
|
236 | 243 |
|
237 |
\patrick{Actually statement 4 is nearly trivial from axiom 27 (for which I corrected the sorts). Maybe you meant something else? |
|
238 |
\anupam{I actually changed those sorts from the submitted version: I really think axiom 27 should be $\forall x^{\safe}, y^{\normal}. x\cdot(\succ{}y)=(x\cdot y)+x$, i.e.\ with the recursion on the normal variable. That way we can do induction on it. Statement 4 is meant to state the recursive property for the safe argument, which we can prove by induction on the normal argument, $u$.} |
|
239 |
|
|
240 |
For statement 3 I replaced the quantifications $\safe$ by $\normal$, otherwise I don't know how to prove it. But I think we need the stronger statement with $\safe$, so probably we should add it as an additional axiom.} |
|
241 |
\anupam{Rather, I do not know how you would prove the current version: we cannot induct on $\exists v^\normal$ from axiom 27 as I state it. For the previous version I would just do induction on $u$ in $(u = 0 \cor \exists x^\safe.\ u = \succ{} x )$. } |
|
244 |
% \patrick{Actually statement 4 is nearly trivial from axiom 27 (for which I corrected the sorts). Maybe you meant something else?
|
|
245 |
% \anupam{I actually changed those sorts from the submitted version: I really think axiom 27 should be $\forall x^{\safe}, y^{\normal}. x\cdot(\succ{}y)=(x\cdot y)+x$, i.e.\ with the recursion on the normal variable. That way we can do induction on it. Statement 4 is meant to state the recursive property for the safe argument, which we can prove by induction on the normal argument, $u$.}
|
|
246 |
% |
|
247 |
% For statement 3 I replaced the quantifications $\safe$ by $\normal$, otherwise I don't know how to prove it. But I think we need the stronger statement with $\safe$, so probably we should add it as an additional axiom.}
|
|
248 |
%\anupam{Rather, I do not know how you would prove the current version: we cannot induct on $\exists v^\normal$ from axiom 27 as I state it. For the previous version I would just do induction on $u$ in $(u = 0 \cor \exists x^\safe.\ u = \succ{} x )$. }
|
|
242 | 249 |
\end{example} |
243 | 250 |
\begin{proof} |
244 |
\begin{itemize} |
|
245 |
\item For the first statement, assume $\succ{} (x)=0$ in order to derive a contradiction. From axiom \ref{axiom1} we deduce $x \leq x$, and so by transitivity (axiom \ref{axiom<=transitivity}) we have $x\leq 0$. So axiom \ref{axiom3} gives us $x=0$, and so $x=\succ{} (x)$. Finally with axiom \ref{axiom2} we conclude with a contradiction. |
|
246 |
\item For statement 2 assume $\succ{} x= \succ{} y$ and, in view of a contradiction, $x\neq y$. Let us apply axiom \ref{axiom6} and assume we are in the case where $x\leq y$ (the case $y\leq x$ is symmetric). By axiom \ref{axiom4}, using the assumption $x\neq y$ we deduce $\succ{} x \leq y$. So as $\succ{} x = \succ{} y$ we can derive that $\succ{} y \leq y$. So by using axiom \ref{axiom1} we obtain that $\succ{} y = y$, hence axiom \ref{axiom2} gives us a contradiction, so we are done. |
|
247 |
\item For statement 3 we proceed by induction on $u$ on the formula %$A(u)= (u=0) \cup \exists^{\normal} v. u=\succ{} v$. |
|
248 |
$A(u)= (u=0) \cup \exists^{\safe} v. u=\succ{} v$. Note that this formula is in $\Sigma^{\safe}_1$, so we can do induction on it in $\arith^1$. |
|
249 |
The formula $A(0)$ obviously holds. Let us assume $A(u)$ and prove $A(\succ{0} u)$ (the case for $A(\succ{1} u)$ will be similar). By $A(u)$ we deduce that either $u=0$, in which case we also have $\succ{0} u=0$, hence $A(\succ{0} u)$ also holds, or there is a $y$ such that $u=\succ{} y$. In this latter case we have $\succ{0} u=2\cdot(\succ{} y)=2 v +2$ (by axiom \ref{axiom29}), hence have $\succ{0} u=\succ{} (\succ{} (2\cdot y))$, and so $A(\succ{0} u)$ holds. |
|
250 |
|
|
251 |
By induction we conclude that $\forall^{\normal} u. A(u)$ holds. |
|
252 |
\item Statement 4: |
|
253 |
%For statement 4 we just use axiom \ref{axiom27} followed by the $+$ commutativity axiom \ref{axiom21}. |
|
254 |
Let $u$ be in $\normal$ and $x$ in $\safe$, and try to prove $u\succ{} x=u+ux$. We have $\succ{} x=x+1$ by axioms \ref{axiom23} and \ref{axiom22} , so $u\succ{} x= u(x+1)$, so from axiom \ref{axiom29} we deduce $ u\succ{} x= u(x+1)=ux+u$, and by axiom \ref{axiom21} we conclude that $ u\succ{} x=u+ux$. |
|
255 |
\end{itemize} |
|
251 |
For \eqref{item:i}, assume $\succ{} (x)=0$ in order to derive a contradiction. From axiom \ref{axiom1} we deduce $x \leq x$, and so by transitivity (axiom \ref{axiom<=transitivity}) we have $x\leq 0$. So axiom \ref{axiom3} gives us $x=0$, and so $x=\succ{} (x)$. Finally with axiom \ref{axiom2} we conclude with a contradiction. |
|
252 |
|
|
253 |
For \eqref{item:ii} assume $\succ{} x= \succ{} y$ and, in view of a contradiction, $x\neq y$. Let us apply axiom \ref{axiom6} and assume we are in the case where $x\leq y$ (the case $y\leq x$ is symmetric). By axiom \ref{axiom4}, using the assumption $x\neq y$ we deduce $\succ{} x \leq y$. So as $\succ{} x = \succ{} y$ we can derive that $\succ{} y \leq y$. So by using axiom \ref{axiom1} we obtain that $\succ{} y = y$, hence axiom \ref{axiom2} gives us a contradiction, so we are done. |
|
254 |
|
|
255 |
For \eqref{item:iii} we proceed by induction on $u$ on the formula %$A(u)= (u=0) \cup \exists^{\normal} v. u=\succ{} v$. |
|
256 |
$A(u)= (u=0) \cup \exists^{\safe} v. u=\succ{} v$. Note that this formula is in $\Sigma^{\safe}_1$, so we can do induction on it in $\arith^1$. |
|
257 |
The formula $A(0)$ obviously holds. Let us assume $A(u)$ and prove $A(\succ{0} u)$ (the case for $A(\succ{1} u)$ will be similar). By $A(u)$ we deduce that either $u=0$, in which case we also have $\succ{0} u=0$, hence $A(\succ{0} u)$ also holds, or there is a $y$ such that $u=\succ{} y$. In this latter case we have $\succ{0} u=2\cdot(\succ{} y)=2 v +2$ (by axiom \ref{axiom29}), hence have $\succ{0} u=\succ{} (\succ{} (2\cdot y))$, and so $A(\succ{0} u)$ holds. |
|
258 |
By induction we conclude that $\forall^{\normal} u. A(u)$ holds. |
|
259 |
|
|
260 |
For \eqref{item:iv} let $u$ be in $\normal$ and $x$ in $\safe$, and try to prove $u\succ{} x=u+ux$. We have $\succ{} x=x+1$ by axioms \ref{axiom23} and \ref{axiom22} , so $u\succ{} x= u(x+1)$, so from axiom \ref{axiom29} we deduce $ u\succ{} x= u(x+1)=ux+u$, and by axiom \ref{axiom21} we conclude that $ u\succ{} x=u+ux$. |
|
256 | 261 |
\end{proof} |
257 | 262 |
It is often useful for us to work with \emph{length-induction}, which is equivalent to polynomial induction and well known from bounded arithmetic: |
258 | 263 |
\begin{proposition} |
... | ... | |
485 | 490 |
where $\Gamma \seqar \Delta$ contains only $\Sigma^\safe_i$ formulae for which the sorting $(\vec u ;\vec x)$ is compatible. |
486 | 491 |
\end{theorem} |
487 | 492 |
|
488 |
Strictly speaking, we must alter some of the sequent rules a little to arrive at this normal form. For instance the $\pind$ rule would have $\normal(\vec u)$ in its lower sequent rather than $\normal (t(\vec u))$. The latter is a consequence of the former already in $\basic$. |
|
489 |
The proof of this result also relies on a heavy use of the structural rules, contraction and weakening, to ensure that we always have a complete and compatible sorting of variables on the LHS of a sequent. This is similar to what is done in \cite{OstrinWainer05} where they use a $G3$ style calculus to manage such structural manipulations. |
|
493 |
Strictly speaking, we must alter some of the sequent rules a little to arrive at this normal form. For instance the $\pind$ rule would have $\normal(\vec u)$ in its lower sequent rather than $\normal (t(\vec u))$: |
|
494 |
\[ |
|
495 |
\small |
|
496 |
\vliinf{}{}{ \normal(\vec u) , \safe (\vec x) , \Gamma , A(0) \seqar A(t(\vec u)), \Delta }{ \normal(u), \normal (\vec u) , \safe (\vec x) , \Gamma, A(u) \seqar A(\succ{0} u) , \Delta }{ \normal(u) ,, \normal(\vec u ) , \safe (\vec x) , \Gamma, A(u) \seqar A(\succ{1} u) , \Delta } |
|
497 |
\] |
|
498 |
Notice that $\normal(t(\vec u))$ is a consequence of $\normal (\vec u)$ already in $\basic$, due to the axioms \eqref{ax:a}-\eqref{ax:h}. |
|
499 |
That the variables of $t$ can be assumed to occur already in the premisses is due to weakening. |
|
500 |
Indeed, the proof of this result relies on a heavy use of the structural rules, contraction and weakening, to ensure that we always have a complete and compatible sorting of variables on the LHS of a sequent. This is similar to what is done in \cite{OstrinWainer05} where they use a $G3$ style calculus to manage such structural manipulations. |
|
490 | 501 |
|
491 |
As we mentioned, the fact that only $\Sigma^\safe_i$ formulae occur is due to the free-cut elimination result for first-order calculi \cite{Takeuti87,Cook:2010:LFP:1734064}, which gives a form of proof where every $\cut$ step has one of its cut formulae `immediately' below a non-logical step. Again, we have to adapt the $\rais$ rule a little to achieve our result, due to the fact that it has a $\exists x^\normal$ in its lower sequent. For this we consider a merge of $\rais$ and $\cut$, which allows us to directly cut the upper sequent of $\rais$ against a sequent of the form $\normal(u), A(u), \Gamma \seqar \Delta$. |
|
502 |
As we mentioned, the fact that only $\Sigma^\safe_i$ formulae occur is due to the free-cut elimination result for first-order calculi \cite{Takeuti87,Cook:2010:LFP:1734064}, which gives a form of proof where every $\cut$ step has one of its cut formulae `immediately' below a non-logical step. Again, we have to adapt the $\rais$ rule a little to achieve our result, due to the fact that it has a $\exists x^\normal$ in its lower sequent. For this we consider a merge of $\rais$ and $\cut$, which allows us to directly cut the upper sequent of $\rais$ against a sequent of the form $\normal(u), A(u), \Gamma \seqar \Delta$: |
|
503 |
\[ |
|
504 |
\vliinf{\rais\cut}{}{\normal (\vec u) , \Gamma \seqar \Delta}{\normal (\vec u) \seqar \exists x^\safe . A(x)}{\normal (u) , A(u) , \Gamma \seqar \Delta} |
|
505 |
\] |
|
492 | 506 |
|
493 | 507 |
Finally, as is usual in bounded arithmetic, we use distinguished rules for our relativised quantifiers \cite{Buss86book}, although we use ones that satisfy the aforementioned constraints. For instance, we include the following rules, from which the remaining ones are similar: |
494 | 508 |
\[ |
Formats disponibles : Unified diff