-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathStlcProp.v
More file actions
1290 lines (1067 loc) · 46.2 KB
/
StlcProp.v
File metadata and controls
1290 lines (1067 loc) · 46.2 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
(** * StlcProp: Properties of STLC *)
Set Warnings "-notation-overridden,-parsing,-deprecated-hint-without-locality".
From PLF Require Import Maps.
From PLF Require Import Types.
From PLF Require Import Stlc.
From PLF Require Import Smallstep.
Set Default Goal Selector "!".
Module STLCProp.
Import STLC.
(** In this chapter, we develop the fundamental theory of the Simply
Typed Lambda Calculus -- in particular, the type safety
theorem. *)
(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Canonical Forms *)
(** As we saw for the very simple language in the [Types]
chapter, the first step in establishing basic properties of
reduction and types is to identify the possible _canonical
forms_ (i.e., well-typed values) belonging to each type. For
[Bool], these are again the boolean values [true] and [false]; for
arrow types, they are lambda-abstractions. *)
(** Formally, we will need these lemmas only for terms that are not
only well typed but _closed_ -- i.e., well typed in the empty
context. *)
Lemma canonical_forms_bool : forall t,
<{ empty |-- t \in Bool }> ->
value t ->
(t = <{true}>) \/ (t = <{false}>).
Proof.
intros t HT HVal.
destruct HVal; auto.
inversion HT.
Qed.
Lemma canonical_forms_fun : forall t T1 T2,
<{ empty |-- t \in T1 -> T2 }> ->
value t ->
exists x u, t = <{\x:T1, u}>.
Proof.
intros t T1 T2 HT HVal.
destruct HVal as [x ? t1| |] ; inversion HT; subst.
exists x, t1. reflexivity.
Qed.
(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Progress *)
(** The _progress_ theorem tells us that closed, well-typed
terms are not stuck: either a well-typed term is a value, or it
can take a reduction step. The proof is a relatively
straightforward extension of the progress proof we saw in the
[Types] chapter. We give the proof in English first, then
the formal version. *)
Theorem progress : forall t T,
<{ empty |-- t \in T }> ->
value t \/ exists t', t --> t'.
(** _Proof_: By induction on the derivation of [|-- t \in T].
- The last rule of the derivation cannot be [T_Var], since a
variable is never well typed in an empty context.
- The [T_True], [T_False], and [T_Abs] cases are trivial, since in
each of these cases we can see by inspecting the rule that [t]
is a value.
- If the last rule of the derivation is [T_App], then [t] has the
form [t1 t2] for some [t1] and [t2], where [|-- t1 \in T2 -> T]
and [|-- t2 \in T2] for some type [T2]. The induction hypothesis
for the first subderivation says that either [t1] is a value or
else it can take a reduction step.
- If [t1] is a value, then consider [t2], which by the
induction hypothesis for the second subderivation must also
either be a value or take a step.
- Suppose [t2] is a value. Since [t1] is a value with an
arrow type, it must be a lambda abstraction; hence [t1
t2] can take a step by [ST_AppAbs].
- Otherwise, [t2] can take a step, and hence so can [t1
t2] by [ST_App2].
- If [t1] can take a step, then so can [t1 t2] by [ST_App1].
- If the last rule of the derivation is [T_If], then [t = if
t1 then t2 else t3], where [t1] has type [Bool]. The first IH
says that [t1] either is a value or takes a step.
- If [t1] is a value, then since it has type [Bool] it must be
either [true] or [false]. If it is [true], then [t] steps to
[t2]; otherwise it steps to [t3].
- Otherwise, [t1] takes a step, and therefore so does [t] (by
[ST_If]). *)
Proof with eauto.
intros t T Ht.
remember empty as Gamma.
induction Ht; subst Gamma; auto.
(* auto solves all three cases in which t is a value *)
- (* T_Var *)
(* contradictory: variables cannot be typed in an
empty context *)
discriminate H.
- (* T_App *)
(* [t] = [t1 t2]. Proceed by cases on whether [t1] is a
value or steps... *)
right. destruct IHHt1...
+ (* t1 is a value *)
destruct IHHt2...
* (* t2 is also a value *)
eapply canonical_forms_fun in Ht1; [|assumption].
destruct Ht1 as [x [t0 H1]]. subst.
exists (<{ [x:=t2]t0 }>)...
* (* t2 steps *)
destruct H0 as [t2' Hstp]. exists (<{t1 t2'}>)...
+ (* t1 steps *)
destruct H as [t1' Hstp]. exists (<{t1' t2}>)...
- (* T_If *)
right. destruct IHHt1...
+ (* t1 is a value *)
destruct (canonical_forms_bool t1); subst; eauto.
+ (* t1 also steps *)
destruct H as [t1' Hstp]. exists <{if t1' then t2 else t3}>...
Qed.
(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, advanced (progress_from_term_ind)
Show that progress can also be proved by induction on terms
instead of induction on typing derivations. *)
Theorem progress' : forall t T,
<{ empty |-- t \in T }> ->
value t \/ exists t', t --> t'.
Proof.
intros t.
induction t; intros T Ht; auto.
- inversion Ht; subst. inversion H1.
- inversion Ht; subst. apply IHt2 in H4. apply IHt1 in H2.
destruct H2 as [Hv1 | [t1' He1]].
+ destruct H4 as [Hv2 | [t2' He2]].
* inversion Hv1; subst; eauto;
inversion Ht; subst; inversion H2; subst.
* right. exists <{t1 t2'}>. constructor; assumption.
+ right. exists <{t1' t2}>. constructor. assumption.
- inversion Ht; subst. apply IHt1 in H3 as Ht1. destruct Ht1 as [Hv1 | [t1' He1]].
+ inversion Hv1; subst; eauto. inversion H3.
+ right. exists <{ if t1' then t2 else t3 }>. constructor. assumption.
Qed.
(** [] *)
(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Preservation *)
(** The other half of the type soundness property is the
preservation of types during reduction. For this part, we'll need
to develop some technical machinery for reasoning about variables
and substitution. Working from top to bottom (from the high-level
property we are actually interested in to the lowest-level
technical lemmas that are needed by various cases of the more
interesting proofs), the story goes like this:
- The _preservation theorem_ is proved by induction on a typing
derivation, pretty much as we did in the [Types] chapter.
The one case that is significantly different is the one for
the [ST_AppAbs] rule, whose definition uses the substitution
operation. To see that this step preserves typing, we need to
know that the substitution itself does. So we prove a...
- _substitution lemma_, stating that substituting a (closed,
well-typed) term [s] for a variable [x] in a term [t]
preserves the type of [t]. The proof goes by induction on the
form of [t] and requires looking at all the different cases in
the definition of substitition. This time, for the variables
case, we discover that we need to deduce from the fact that a
term [s] has type S in the empty context the fact that [s] has
type S in every context. For this we prove a...
- _weakening_ lemma, showing that typing is preserved under
"extensions" to the context [Gamma].
To make Coq happy, of course, we need to formalize the story in the
opposite order, starting with weakening... *)
(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** The Weakening Lemma *)
(** First, we show that typing is preserved under "extensions" to the
context [Gamma]. (Recall the definition of "includedin" from
Maps.v.) *)
Lemma weakening : forall Gamma Gamma' t T,
includedin Gamma Gamma' ->
<{ Gamma |-- t \in T }> ->
<{ Gamma' |-- t \in T }>.
Proof.
intros Gamma Gamma' t T H Ht.
generalize dependent Gamma'.
induction Ht; eauto using includedin_update.
Qed.
(** The following simple corollary is what we actually need below. *)
Lemma weakening_empty : forall Gamma t T,
<{ empty |-- t \in T }> ->
<{ Gamma |-- t \in T }>.
Proof.
intros Gamma t T.
eapply weakening.
discriminate.
Qed.
(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** The Substitution Lemma *)
(** Now we come to the conceptual heart of the proof that reduction
preserves types -- namely, the observation that _substitution_
preserves types. *)
(** Formally, the so-called _substitution lemma_ says this:
Suppose we have a term [t] with a free variable [x], and suppose
we've assigned a type [T] to [t] under the assumption that [x] has
some type [U]. Also, suppose that we have some other term [v] and
that we've shown that [v] has type [U]. Then, since [v] satisfies
the assumption we made about [x] when typing [t], we can
substitute [v] for each of the occurrences of [x] in [t] and
obtain a new term that still has type [T].
_Lemma_: If [x|->U; Gamma |-- t \in T] and [|-- v \in U],
then [Gamma |-- [x:=v]t \in T]. *)
Lemma substitution_preserves_typing : forall Gamma x U t v T,
<{ x |-> U ; Gamma |-- t \in T }> ->
<{ empty |-- v \in U }> ->
<{ Gamma |-- [x:=v]t \in T }>.
(** The substitution lemma can be viewed as a kind of "commutation
property." Intuitively, it says that substitution and typing can
be done in either order: we can either assign types to the terms
[t] and [v] separately (under suitable contexts) and then combine
them using substitution, or we can substitute first and then
assign a type to [ [x:=v] t ]; the result is the same either
way.
_Proof_: We show, by induction on [t], that for all [T] and
[Gamma], if [x|->U; Gamma |-- t \in T] and [|-- v \in U], then
[Gamma |-- [x:=v]t \in T].
- If [t] is a variable there are two cases to consider,
depending on whether [t] is [x] or some other variable.
- If [t = x], then from the fact that [x|->U; Gamma |-- x \in
T] we conclude that [U = T]. We must show that [[x:=v]x =
v] has type [T] under [Gamma], given the assumption that
[v] has type [U = T] under the empty context. This
follows from the weakening lemma.
- If [t] is some variable [y] that is not equal to [x], then
we need only note that [y] has the same type under [x|->U;
Gamma] as under [Gamma].
- If [t] is an abstraction [\y:S, t0], then [T = S->T1] and
the IH tells us, for all [Gamma'] and [T0], that if [x|->U;
Gamma' |-- t0 \in T0], then [Gamma' |-- [x:=v]t0 \in T0].
Moreover, by inspecting the typing rules we see it must be
the case that [y|->S; x|->U; Gamma |-- t0 \in T1].
The substitution in the conclusion behaves differently
depending on whether [x] and [y] are the same variable.
First, suppose [x = y]. Then, by the definition of
substitution, [[x:=v]t = t], so we just need to show [Gamma |--
t \in T]. Using [T_Abs], we need to show that [y|->S; Gamma
|-- t0 \in T1]. But we know [y|->S; x|->U; Gamma |-- t0 \in T1],
and the claim follows since [x = y].
Second, suppose [x <> y]. Again, using [T_Abs],
we need to show that [y|->S; Gamma |-- [x:=v]t0 \in T1].
Since [x <> y], we have
[y|->S; x|->U; Gamma = x|->U; y|->S; Gamma]. So
we have [x|->U; y|->S; Gamma |-- t0 \in T1]. Then, the
the IH applies (taking [Gamma' = y|->S; Gamma]), giving us
[y|->S; Gamma |-- [x:=v]t0 \in T1], as required.
- If [t] is an application [t1 t2], the result follows
straightforwardly from the definition of substitution and the
induction hypotheses.
- The remaining cases are similar to the application case. *)
Proof.
intros Gamma x U t v T Ht Hv.
generalize dependent Gamma. generalize dependent T.
induction t; intros T Gamma H;
(* in each case, we'll want to get at the derivation of H *)
inversion H; clear H; subst; simpl; eauto.
- (* var *)
rename s into y. destruct (eqb_spec x y); subst.
+ (* x=y *)
rewrite update_eq in H2.
injection H2 as H2; subst.
apply weakening_empty. assumption.
+ (* x<>y *)
apply T_Var. rewrite update_neq in H2; auto.
- (* abs *)
rename s into y, t into S.
destruct (eqb_spec x y); subst; apply T_Abs.
+ (* x=y *)
rewrite update_shadow in H5. assumption.
+ (* x<>y *)
apply IHt.
rewrite update_permute; auto.
Qed.
(** One technical subtlety in the statement of the above lemma is that
we assume [v] has type [U] in the _empty_ context -- in other
words, we assume [v] is closed. (Since we are using a simple
definition of substition that is not capture-avoiding, it doesn't
make sense to substitute non-closed terms into other terms.
Fortunately, closed terms are all we need!)
*)
(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, advanced (substitution_preserves_typing_from_typing_ind)
Show that substitution_preserves_typing can also be
proved by induction on typing derivations instead
of induction on terms. *)
Lemma substitution_preserves_typing_from_typing_ind : forall Gamma x U t v T,
<{ x |-> U ; Gamma |-- t \in T }> ->
<{ empty |-- v \in U }> ->
<{ Gamma |-- [x:=v]t \in T }>.
Proof.
intros Gamma x U t v T Ht Hv.
remember (x |-> U; Gamma) as Gamma'.
generalize dependent Gamma.
induction Ht; intros Gamma' G; simpl; eauto.
- destruct (x =? x0)%string eqn:Ex.
+ apply eqb_eq in Ex. rewrite <- Ex in H.
apply weakening_empty. rewrite G in H.
rewrite update_eq in H. inversion H.
rewrite <- H1. assumption.
+ apply eqb_neq in Ex. rewrite G in H.
rewrite update_neq in H; auto.
- destruct (x =? x0)%string eqn:Ex.
+ constructor. apply eqb_eq in Ex.
rewrite G in Ht. rewrite Ex in Ht.
rewrite update_shadow in Ht.
assumption.
+ constructor. apply IHHt.
rewrite G. apply eqb_neq in Ex.
rewrite update_permute; auto.
Qed.
(** [] *)
(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Main Theorem *)
(** We now have the ingredients we need to prove preservation: if a
closed, well-typed term [t] has type [T] and takes a step to [t'],
then [t'] is also a closed term with type [T]. In other words,
the small-step reduction relation preserves types. *)
Theorem preservation : forall t t' T,
<{ empty |-- t \in T }> ->
t --> t' ->
<{ empty |-- t' \in T }>.
(** _Proof_: By induction on the derivation of [|-- t \in T].
- We can immediately rule out [T_Var], [T_Abs], [T_True], and
[T_False] as final rules in the derivation, since in each of these
cases [t] cannot take a step.
- If the last rule in the derivation is [T_App], then [t = t1 t2],
and there are subderivations showing that [|-- t1 \in T2->T] and
[|-- t2 \in T2] plus two induction hypotheses: (1) [t1 --> t1']
implies [|-- t1' \in T2->T] and (2) [t2 --> t2'] implies [|-- t2'
\in T2]. There are now three subcases to consider, one for
each rule that could be used to show that [t1 t2] takes a step
to [t'].
- If [t1 t2] takes a step by [ST_App1], with [t1] stepping to
[t1'], then, by the first IH, [t1'] has the same type as
[t1] ([|-- t1' \in T2->T]), and hence by [T_App] [t1' t2] has
type [T].
- The [ST_App2] case is similar, using the second IH.
- If [t1 t2] takes a step by [ST_AppAbs], then [t1 =
\x:T0,t0] and [t1 t2] steps to [[x0:=t2]t0]; the desired
result now follows from the substitution lemma.
- If the last rule in the derivation is [T_If], then [t = if
t1 then t2 else t3], with [|-- t1 \in Bool], [|-- t2 \in T1], and
[|-- t3 \in T1], and with three induction hypotheses: (1) [t1 -->
t1'] implies [|-- t1' \in Bool], (2) [t2 --> t2'] implies [|-- t2'
\in T1], and (3) [t3 --> t3'] implies [|-- t3' \in T1].
There are again three subcases to consider, depending on how [t]
steps.
- If [t] steps to [t2] or [t3] by [ST_IfTrue] or
[ST_IfFalse], the result is immediate, since [t2] and [t3]
have the same type as [t].
- Otherwise, [t] steps by [ST_If], and the desired
conclusion follows directly from the first induction
hypothesis. *)
Proof with eauto.
intros t t' T HT. generalize dependent t'.
remember empty as Gamma.
induction HT;
intros t' HE; subst;
try solve [inversion HE; subst; auto].
- (* T_App *)
inversion HE; subst...
(* Most of the cases are immediate by induction,
and [eauto] takes care of them *)
+ (* ST_AppAbs *)
apply substitution_preserves_typing with T2...
inversion HT1...
Qed.
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, especially useful (subject_expansion_stlc)
An exercise in the [Types] chapter asked about the _subject
expansion_ property for the simple language of arithmetic and
boolean expressions. This property did not hold for that language,
and it also fails for STLC. That is, it is not always the case that,
if [t --> t'] and [empty |-- t' \in T], then [empty |-- t \in T].
Show this by giving a counter-example that does _not involve
conditionals_. *)
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Theorem not_subject_expansion:
exists t t' T, t --> t' /\ <{ empty |-- t' \in T }> /\ ~ <{ empty |-- t \in T }>.
Proof.
exists <{ (\x:(Bool -> Bool), (\y: Bool, true)) true}>, <{ \y: Bool, true }>, <{{Bool -> Bool}}>.
split; [.. | split]; auto. intros contra. inversion contra; subst.
inversion H4; subst. inversion H2; subst.
Qed.
(* Do not modify the following line: *)
Definition manual_grade_for_subject_expansion_stlc : option (nat*string) := None.
(** [] *)
(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Type Soundness *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (type_soundness)
Put progress and preservation together and show that a well-typed
term can _never_ reach a stuck state. *)
Definition stuck (t:tm) : Prop :=
(normal_form step) t /\ ~ value t.
Corollary type_soundness : forall t t' T,
<{ empty |-- t \in T }> ->
t -->* t' ->
~(stuck t').
Proof.
intros t t' T Hhas_type Hmulti. unfold stuck.
intros [Hnf Hnot_val]. unfold normal_form in Hnf.
induction Hmulti.
- apply progress in Hhas_type.
destruct Hhas_type as [H | H]; auto.
- apply progress in Hhas_type as Hprog. destruct Hprog as [Hv | He].
+ inversion H; subst; inversion Hv.
+ apply IHHmulti; auto. eapply preservation; eauto.
Qed.
(** [] *)
(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Uniqueness of Types *)
(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard (unique_types)
Another nice property of the STLC is that types are unique: a
given term (in a given context) has at most one type. *)
Theorem unique_types : forall Gamma e T T',
<{ Gamma |-- e \in T }> ->
<{ Gamma |-- e \in T' }> ->
T = T'.
Proof.
intros Gamma e T T' HT. generalize dependent T'.
induction HT; intros T' HT'; inversion HT'; subst; auto.
- rewrite H in H2. inversion H2. reflexivity.
- apply IHHT in H4. rewrite H4. reflexivity.
- apply IHHT2 in H4. rewrite <- H4 in H2.
apply IHHT1 in H2. inversion H2. reflexivity.
Qed.
(** [] *)
(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Context Invariance (Optional) *)
(** Another standard technical lemma associated with typed languages
is _context invariance_. It states that typing is preserved under
"inessential changes" to the context [Gamma] -- in particular,
changes that do not affect any of the free variables of the
term. In this section, we establish this property for our system,
introducing some other standard terminology on the way. *)
(** First, we need to define the _free variables_ in a term -- i.e.,
variables that are used in the term in positions that are _not_ in
the scope of an enclosing function abstraction binding a variable
of the same name.
More technically, a variable [x] _appears free in_ a term _t_ if
[t] contains some occurrence of [x] that is not under an
abstraction labeled [x]. For example:
- [y] appears free, but [x] does not, in [\x:T->U, x y]
- both [x] and [y] appear free in [(\x:T->U, x y) x]
- no variables appear free in [\x:T->U, \y:T, x y]
Formally: *)
Inductive appears_free_in (x : string) : tm -> Prop :=
| afi_var : appears_free_in x <{x}>
| afi_app1 : forall t1 t2,
appears_free_in x t1 ->
appears_free_in x <{t1 t2}>
| afi_app2 : forall t1 t2,
appears_free_in x t2 ->
appears_free_in x <{t1 t2}>
| afi_abs : forall y T1 t1,
y <> x ->
appears_free_in x t1 ->
appears_free_in x <{\y:T1, t1}>
| afi_if1 : forall t1 t2 t3,
appears_free_in x t1 ->
appears_free_in x <{if t1 then t2 else t3}>
| afi_if2 : forall t1 t2 t3,
appears_free_in x t2 ->
appears_free_in x <{if t1 then t2 else t3}>
| afi_if3 : forall t1 t2 t3,
appears_free_in x t3 ->
appears_free_in x <{if t1 then t2 else t3}>.
Hint Constructors appears_free_in : core.
(** The _free variables_ of a term are just the variables that appear
free in it. This gives us another way to define _closed_ terms --
arguably a better one, since it applies even to ill-typed
terms. Indeed, this is the standard definition of the term
"closed." *)
Definition closed (t:tm) :=
forall x, ~ appears_free_in x t.
(** Conversely, an _open_ term is one that may contain free
variables. (I.e., every term is an open term; the closed terms
are a subset of the open ones. "Open" precisely means "possibly
containing free variables.") *)
(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard, optional (afi)
(Officially optional, but strongly recommended!) In the space
below, write out the rules of the [appears_free_in] relation in
informal inference-rule notation. (Use whatever notational
conventions you like -- the point of the exercise is just for you
to think a bit about the meaning of each rule.) Although this is
a rather low-level, technical definition, understanding it is
crucial to understanding substitution and its properties, which
are really the crux of the lambda-calculus. *)
(* FILL IN HERE *)
(* Do not modify the following line: *)
Definition manual_grade_for_afi : option (nat*string) := None.
(** [] *)
(** Next, we show that if a variable [x] appears free in a term [t],
and if we know [t] is well typed in context [Gamma], then it
must be the case that [Gamma] assigns a type to [x]. *)
Lemma free_in_context : forall x t T Gamma,
appears_free_in x t ->
<{ Gamma |-- t \in T }> ->
exists T', Gamma x = Some T'.
(** _Proof_: We show, by induction on the proof that [x] appears free
in [t], that, for all contexts [Gamma], if [t] is well typed under
[Gamma], then [Gamma] assigns some type to [x].
- If the last rule used is [afi_var], then [t = x], and from the
assumption that [t] is well typed under [Gamma] we have
immediately that [Gamma] assigns a type to [x].
- If the last rule used is [afi_app1], then [t = t1 t2] and [x]
appears free in [t1]. Since [t] is well typed under [Gamma], we
can see from the typing rules that [t1] must also be, and the IH
then tells us that [Gamma] assigns [x] a type.
- Almost all the other cases are similar: [x] appears free in a
subterm of [t], and since [t] is well typed under [Gamma], we
know the subterm of [t] in which [x] appears is well typed under
[Gamma] as well, and the IH gives us exactly the conclusion we
want.
- The only remaining case is [afi_abs]. In this case [t =
\y:T1,t1] and [x] appears free in [t1], and we also know that
[x] is different from [y]. The difference from the previous
cases is that, whereas [t] is well typed under [Gamma], its body
[t1] is well typed under [y|->T1; Gamma], so the IH allows us
to conclude that [x] is assigned some type by the extended
context [y|->T1; Gamma]. To conclude that [Gamma] assigns a
type to [x], we appeal to lemma [update_neq], noting that [x]
and [y] are different variables. *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (free_in_context)
Complete the following proof. *)
Proof.
intros x t T Gamma H H0. generalize dependent Gamma.
generalize dependent T.
induction H as [| | |y T1 t1 H H0 IHappears_free_in| | |];
intros; try solve [inversion H0; eauto].
inversion H1; subst. apply IHappears_free_in in H7.
destruct H7 as [T' H7]. exists T'. rewrite update_neq in H7; auto.
Qed.
(** [] *)
(** From the [free_in_context] lemma, it immediately follows that any
term [t] that is well typed in the empty context is closed (it has
no free variables). *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (typable_empty__closed) *)
Corollary typable_empty__closed : forall t T,
<{ empty |-- t \in T }> ->
closed t.
Proof.
unfold closed. intros t T Ht x Haf.
generalize dependent T.
induction Haf; intros T Ht; auto; inversion Ht; subst;
try solve [eapply IHHaf; eassumption].
- inversion H1.
- apply (free_in_context _ _ _ _ Haf) in H5.
destruct H5 as [T' H5]. rewrite update_neq in H5; auto.
inversion H5.
Qed.
(** [] *)
(** Finally, we establish _context_invariance_. It is useful in cases
when we have a proof of some typing relation [Gamma |-- t \in T],
and we need to replace [Gamma] by a different context [Gamma'].
When is it safe to do this? Intuitively, it must at least be the
case that [Gamma'] assigns the same types as [Gamma] to all the
variables that appear free in [t]. In fact, this is the only
condition that is needed. *)
Lemma context_invariance : forall Gamma Gamma' t T,
<{ Gamma |-- t \in T }> ->
(forall x, appears_free_in x t -> Gamma x = Gamma' x) ->
<{ Gamma' |-- t \in T }>.
(** _Proof_: By induction on the derivation of [Gamma |-- t \in T].
- If the last rule in the derivation was [T_Var], then [t = x] and
[Gamma x = T]. By assumption, [Gamma' x = T] as well, and hence
[Gamma' |-- t \in T] by [T_Var].
- If the last rule was [T_Abs], then [t = \y:T2, t1], with [T =
T2 -> T1] and [y|->T2; Gamma |-- t1 \in T1]. The induction
hypothesis states that for any context [Gamma''], if [y|->T2;
Gamma] and [Gamma''] assign the same types to all the free
variables in [t1], then [t1] has type [T1] under [Gamma''].
Let [Gamma'] be a context which agrees with [Gamma] on the free
variables in [t]; we must show [Gamma' |-- \y:T2, t1 \in T2 -> T1].
By [T_Abs], it suffices to show that [y|->T2; Gamma' |-- t1 \in
T1]. By the IH (setting [Gamma'' = y|->T2;Gamma']), it
suffices to show that [y|->T2;Gamma] and [y|->T2;Gamma'] agree
on all the variables that appear free in [t1].
Any variable occurring free in [t1] must be either [y] or some
other variable. [y|->T2; Gamma] and [y|->T2; Gamma'] clearly
agree on [y]. Otherwise, note that any variable other than [y]
that occurs free in [t1] also occurs free in [t = \y:T2, t1],
and by assumption [Gamma] and [Gamma'] agree on all such
variables; hence so do [y|->T2; Gamma] and [y|->T2; Gamma'].
- If the last rule was [T_App], then [t = t1 t2], with [Gamma |--
t1 \in T2 -> T] and [Gamma |-- t2 \in T2]. One induction
hypothesis states that for all contexts [Gamma'], if [Gamma']
agrees with [Gamma] on the free variables in [t1], then [t1] has
type [T2 -> T] under [Gamma']; there is a similar IH for [t2].
We must show that [t1 t2] also has type [T] under [Gamma'],
given the assumption that [Gamma'] agrees with [Gamma] on all
the free variables in [t1 t2]. By [T_App], it suffices to show
that [t1] and [t2] each have the same type under [Gamma'] as
under [Gamma]. But all free variables in [t1] are also free in
[t1 t2], and similarly for [t2]; hence the desired result
follows from the induction hypotheses. *)
(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard, optional (context_invariance)
Complete the following proof. *)
Proof.
intros.
generalize dependent Gamma'.
induction H as [| ? x0 ????? | | | |]; intros; auto.
- assert (appears_free_in x0 x0) by constructor. apply H0 in H1.
rewrite H1 in H. constructor. assumption.
- constructor. apply IHhas_type. intros x1 Hx1.
destruct (string_dec x0 x1).
+ rewrite e. repeat rewrite update_eq. reflexivity.
+ rewrite update_neq; auto. rewrite update_neq; auto.
- econstructor; [apply IHhas_type1 | apply IHhas_type2]; intros x Hx; apply H1; auto.
Qed.
(** [] *)
(** The context invariance lemma can actually be used in place of the
weakening lemma to prove the crucial substitution lemma stated
earlier. *)
(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Additional Exercises *)
(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard, optional (progress_preservation_statement)
(Officially optional, but strongly recommended!) Without peeking
at their statements above, write down the progress and
preservation theorems for the simply typed lambda-calculus (as Coq
theorems). You can write [Admitted] for the proofs. *)
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Theorem progress'': forall x T,
<{ empty |-- x \in T }> -> value x \/ (exists x', x --> x').
Proof. Admitted.
Theorem preservation'': forall x x' T,
<{ empty |-- x \in T }> ->
x --> x' ->
<{ empty |-- x' \in T }>.
Proof. Admitted.
(* Do not modify the following line: *)
Definition manual_grade_for_progress_preservation_statement : option (nat*string) := None.
(** [] *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (stlc_variation1)
Suppose we add a new term [zap] with the following reduction rule
--------- (ST_Zap)
t --> zap
and the following typing rule:
------------------- (T_Zap)
Gamma |-- zap \in T
Which of the following properties of the STLC remain true in
the presence of these rules? For each property, write either
"remains true" or "becomes false." If a property becomes
false, give a counterexample.
- Determinism of [step]
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. Ex: <{ (\x:Bool, x) true }> --> <{ true }> and <{ (\x: Bool, x) true }> --> zap
- Progress
(* FILL IN HERE *)
remains true.
- Preservation
(* FILL IN HERE *)
remains true.
*)
(* Do not modify the following line: *)
Definition manual_grade_for_stlc_variation1 : option (nat*string) := None.
(** [] *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (stlc_variation2)
Suppose instead that we add a new term [foo] with the following
reduction rules:
----------------- (ST_Foo1)
(\x:A, x) --> foo
------------ (ST_Foo2)
foo --> true
Which of the following properties of the STLC remain true in
the presence of this rule? For each one, write either
"remains true" or else "becomes false." If a property becomes
false, give a counterexample.
- Determinism of [step]
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. <{ (\x:Bool, x) true }> --> true and <{ (\x:Bool, x) true }> --> <{ foo true }>
- Progress
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
- Preservation
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. <{empty |-- (\x: Bool, x) \in Bool -> Bool }> but foo doesn't have a type.
If it were to adopt Bool -> Bool we'd then have <{ empty |-- foo \in Bool -> Bool }> and <{ foo }> -> <{ true }> but <{ empty |-- true \in Bool }>.
*)
(* Do not modify the following line: *)
Definition manual_grade_for_stlc_variation2 : option (nat*string) := None.
(** [] *)
Print step.
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (stlc_variation3)
Suppose instead that we remove the rule [ST_App1] from the [step]
relation. Which of the following properties of the STLC remain
true in the presence of this rule? For each one, write either
"remains true" or else "becomes false." If a property becomes
false, give a counterexample.
- Determinism of [step]
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
- Progress
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. <{ ((\x: Bool -> Bool, x) (\y:Bool, y)) true }> cannot make progress.
- Preservation
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
*)
(* Do not modify the following line: *)
Definition manual_grade_for_stlc_variation3 : option (nat*string) := None.
(** [] *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (stlc_variation4)
Suppose instead that we add the following new rule to the
reduction relation:
---------------------------------- (ST_FunnyIfTrue)
(if true then t1 else t2) --> true
Which of the following properties of the STLC remain true in
the presence of this rule? For each one, write either
"remains true" or else "becomes false." If a property becomes
false, give a counterexample.
- Determinism of [step]
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. <{ if true then (\x: Bool, x) else false }> can either be <{ \x: Bool, x }> or <{ true }>
- Progress
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
- Preservation
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. <{ empty |-- if true then (\x:T, x) else (\x:T, x) \in T -> T }> but <{ true \in Bool }>
*)
(** [] *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (stlc_variation5)
Suppose instead that we add the following new rule to the typing
relation:
Gamma |-- t1 \in Bool->Bool->Bool
Gamma |-- t2 \in Bool
--------------------------------- (T_FunnyApp)
Gamma |-- t1 t2 \in Bool
Which of the following properties of the STLC remain true in
the presence of this rule? For each one, write either
"remains true" or else "becomes false." If a property becomes
false, give a counterexample.
- Determinism of [step]
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
- Progress
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
- Preservation
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. <{ empty |-- (\x:Bool, \y:Bool, false) \in Bool -> Bool -> Bool }> and <{ empty |-- true \in Bool }>
but <{ empty |-- (\x:Bool, \y:Bool, false) true \in Bool -> Bool }> and <{ empty |-- (\x:Bool, \y:Bool, false) true \in Bool }>
*)
(** [] *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (stlc_variation6)
Suppose instead that we add the following new rule to the typing
relation:
Gamma |-- t1 \in Bool
Gamma |-- t2 \in Bool
------------------------ (T_FunnyApp')
Gamma |-- t1 t2 \in Bool
Which of the following properties of the STLC remain true in
the presence of this rule? For each one, write either
"remains true" or else "becomes false." If a property becomes
false, give a counterexample.
- Determinism of [step]
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
- Progress
(* FILL IN HERE *)
False. <{ true true \in Bool}> but is not a value nor can it be reduced
- Preservation
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
*)
(** [] *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard, optional (stlc_variation7)
Suppose we add the following new rule to the typing relation
of the STLC:
---------------------- (T_FunnyAbs)
|-- \x:Bool,t \in Bool
Which of the following properties of the STLC remain true in
the presence of this rule? For each one, write either
"remains true" or else "becomes false." If a property becomes
false, give a counterexample.
- Determinism of [step]
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
- Progress
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Becomes false. <{ if (\x:Bool, t) then true else false }> cannot make progress
- Preservation
(* FILL IN HERE *)
Remains true.
*)
(** [] *)
End STLCProp.
(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Exercise: STLC with Arithmetic *)
(** To see how the STLC might function as the core of a real
programming language, let's extend it with a concrete base
type of numbers and some constants and primitive
operators. *)
Module STLCArith.
Import STLC.
(** To types, we add a base type of natural numbers (and remove
booleans, for brevity). *)
Inductive ty : Type :=
| Ty_Arrow : ty -> ty -> ty
| Ty_Nat : ty.
(** To terms, we add natural number constants, along with
successor, predecessor, multiplication, and zero-testing. *)
Inductive tm : Type :=
| tm_var : string -> tm
| tm_app : tm -> tm -> tm
| tm_abs : string -> ty -> tm -> tm
| tm_const : nat -> tm
| tm_succ : tm -> tm
| tm_pred : tm -> tm
| tm_mult : tm -> tm -> tm
| tm_if0 : tm -> tm -> tm -> tm.
Notation "<{{ x }}>" := x (x custom stlc_ty).
Notation "( t )" := t (in custom stlc_ty at level 0, t custom stlc_ty) : stlc_scope.
Notation "S -> T" := (Ty_Arrow S T) (in custom stlc_ty at level 99, right associativity) : stlc_scope.
Notation "$( t )" := t (in custom stlc_ty at level 0, t constr) : stlc_scope.
Notation "$( x )" := x (in custom stlc_tm at level 0, x constr, only parsing) : stlc_scope.
Notation "x" := x (in custom stlc_tm at level 0, x constr at level 0) : stlc_scope.
Notation "<{ e }>" := e (e custom stlc_tm at level 200) : stlc_scope.
Notation "( x )" := x (in custom stlc_tm at level 0, x custom stlc_tm) : stlc_scope.
Notation "x y" := (tm_app x y) (in custom stlc_tm at level 10, left associativity) : stlc_scope.
Notation "\ x : t , y" :=