Browse Source

More progress on Coq post.

Danila Fedorin 1 year ago
  1. 158


@ -249,6 +249,9 @@ the program terminates in an "ok" state. Here's a rule for terminating in the "o
{(c, a, v) \Rightarrow_{p} (c, a, v)}
{{< /latex >}}
{{< todo >}}
We can make this closer to the Coq version.
{{< /todo >}}
When our program counter reaches the end of the program, we are also done evaluating it. Even though
both rules {{< sidenote "right" "redundant-note" "lead to the same conclusion," >}}
In fact, if the end of the program is never included in the valid set, the second rule is completely redundant.
@ -284,7 +287,7 @@ case - it only says an instruction shouldn't be run twice. The "valid set", alth
this debate, is our invention, and isn't part of the original specification.
There is, however, something we can infer from this problem. Since the problem of jumping "too far behind" or
"too far ahead" is never mentioned, we can assume that _all jumps will lead either to a valid instruction,
"too far ahead" is never mentioned, we can assume that _all jumps will lead either to an instruction,
or right to the end of a program_. This means that \\(c\\) is a natural number, with
{{< latex >}}
@ -355,3 +358,156 @@ If we were to access its elements by indices starting at 0, we'd be allowed to a
These are precisely the values of the finite natural numbers less than \\(n\\), \\(\\text{Fin} \\; n \\).
Thus, given such an index \\(\\text{Fin} \\; n\\) and a vector \\(\\text{Vec} \\; t \\; n\\), we are guaranteed
to be able to retrieve the element at the given index! In our code, we will not have to worry about bounds checking.
Of course, if our program has \\(n\\) elements, our program counter will be a finite number less than \\(n+1\\),
since there's always the possibility of it pointing past the instructions, indicating that we've finished
running the program. This leads to some minor complications: we can't safely access the program instruction
at index \\(\\text{Fin} \\; (n+1)\\). We can solve this problem by considering two cases:
either our index points one past the end of the program (in which case its value is exactly the finite
representation of \\(n\\)), or it's less than \\(n\\), in which case we can "tighten" the upper bound,
and convert that index into a \\(\\text{Fin} \\; n\\). We formalize it in a lemma:
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 80 82 >}}
{{< todo >}}Prove this (at least informally) {{< /todo >}}
There's a little bit of a gotcha here. Instead of translating our above statement literally,
and returning a value that's the result of "tightening" our input `f`, we return a value
`f'` that can be "weakened" to `f`. This is because "tightening" is not a total function -
it's not always possible to convert a \\(\\text{Fin} \\; (n+1)\\) into a \\(\\text{Fin} \\; n\\).
However, "weakening" \\(\\text{Fin} \\; n\\) _is_ a total function, since a number less than \\(n\\)
is, by the transitive property of a total order, also less than \\(n+1\\).
Next, let's talk about addition, specifically the kind of addition done by the \\(\\texttt{jmp}\\) instruction.
We can always add an integer to a natural number, but we can at best guarantee that the result
will be an integer. For instance, we can add `-1000` to `1`, and get `-999`, which is _not_ a natural
number. We implement this kind of addition in a function called `jump_t`:
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 56 56 >}}
At the moment, its definition is not particularly important. What is important, though,
is that it takes a bounded natural number `pc` (our program counter), an integer `off`
(the offset provided by the jump instruction) and returns another integer representing
the final offset. Why are integers of type `t`? Well, it so happens
that Coq provides facilities for working with arbitrary implementations of integers,
without relying on how they are implemented under the hood. This can be seen in its
[`Coq.ZArith.Int`]( module,
which describes what functions and types an implementation of integers should provide.
Among those is `t`, the type an integer in such an arbitrary implementation. We too
will not make an assumption about how the integers are implemented, and simply
use this generic `t` from now on.
#### Semantics in Coq
Now that we've seen finite sets and vectors, it's time to use them to
encode our semantics in Coq. Let's start with jumps. Suppose we wanted to write a function that _does_ return a valid program
counter after adding the offset to it. Since it's possible for this function to fail
(for instance, if the offset is very negative), it has to return `option (fin (S n))`.
That is, this function may either fail (returning `None`) or succeed, returning
`Some f`, where `f` is of type `fin (S n)`, aka \\(\\text{Fin} \\; (n + 1)\\). Here's
the function in Coq (again, don't worry too much about the definition):
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 61 61 >}}
But earlier, didn't we say:
> All jumps will lead either to an instruction, or right to the end of a program.
To make Coq aware of this constraint, we'll have to formalize this notion. To
start off, we'll define the notion of a "valid instruction", which is guaranteed
to keep the program counter in the correct range.
There are a couple of ways to do this, but we'll use yet another definition based
on inference rules. First, though, observe that the same instruction may be valid
for one program, and invalid for another. For instance, \\(\\texttt{jmp} \\; 100\\)
is perfectly valid for a program with thousands of instructions, but if it occurs
in a program with only 3 instructions, it will certainly lead to disaster. Specifically,
the validity of an instruction depends on the length of the program in which it resides,
and the program counter at which it's encountered.
Thus, we refine our idea of validity to "being valid for a program of length n at program counter f".
For this, we can use the following two inference rules:
{{< latex >}}
{c : \text{Fin} \; n}
{\texttt{acc} \; t \; \text{valid for} \; n, c }
{c : \text{Fin} \; n \quad o \in \{\texttt{nop}, \texttt{jmp}\} \quad J_v(c, t) = \text{Some} \; c' }
{o \; t \; \text{valid for} \; n, c }
{{< /latex >}}
The first rule states that if a program has length \\(n\\), then it's valid
at any program counter whose value is less than \\(n\\). This is because running
\\(\\texttt{add}\\) will increment the program counter \\(c\\) by 1,
and thus, create a new program counter that's less than \\(n+1\\),
which, as we discussed above, is perfectly valid.
The second rule works for the other two instructions. It has an extra premise:
the result of `jump_valid_t` (written as \\(J_v\\)) has to be \\(\\text{Some} \\; c'\\),
that is, `jump_valid_t` must succeed. Now, if an instruction satisfies these validity
rules for a given program at a given program counter, evaluating it will always
result in a program counter that has a proper value.
We encode this in Coq as follows:
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 152 157 >}}
Note that we have three rules instead of two. This is because we "unfolded"
\\(o\\) from our second rule: rather than using set notation (or "or"), we
just generated two rules that vary in nothing but the operation involved.
Of course, we must have that every instruction in a program is valid.
We don't really need inference rules for this, as much as a "forall" quantifier.
A program \\(p\\) of length \\(n\\) is valid if the following holds:
{{< latex >}}
\forall (c : \text{Fin} \; n). p[c] \; \text{valid for} \; n, c
{{< /latex >}}
That is, for every possible in-bounds program counter \\(c\\),
the instruction at the program counter is valid. We can now
encode this in Coq, too:
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 160 161 >}}
In the above, we use `input n` to mean "a program of length `n`".
This is just an alias for `vect inst n`, a vector of instructions
of length `n`. In the above, `n` is made implicit where possible.
Since \\(c\\) (called `pc` in the code) is of type \\(\\text{Fin} \\; n\\), there's no
need to write \\(n\\) _again_.
Finally, it's time to get started on the semantics themselves.
We start with the inductive definition of \\((\\rightarrow_i)\\).
I think this is fairly straightforward. We use
`t` instead of \\(n\\) from the rules, and we use `FS`
instead of \\(+1\\). Also, we make the formerly implicit
assumption that \\(c+n\\) is valid explicit, by
providing a proof that `valid_jump_t pc t = Some pc'`.
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 103 110 >}}
Next, it will help us to combine the premises for a
"failed" and "ok" terminations into Coq data types.
This will help us formulate a lemma later on. Here they are:
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 112 117 >}}
Since all of out "termination" rules start and
end in the same state, there's no reason to
write that state twice. Thus, both `done`
and `stuck` only take the input `inp`,
and the state, which includes the accumulator
`acc`, set of allowed program counters `v`, and
the program counter at which the program came to an end.
When the program terminates successfully, this program
counter will be equal to the length of the program `n`,
so we use `nat_to_fin n`. On the other hand, if the program
terminates in as stuck state, it must be that it terminated
at a program counter that points to an instruction. Thus, this
program counter is actually a \\(\\text{Fin} \\; n\\), and not
a \\(\\text{Fin} \\ (n+1)\\) (we use the same "weakening" trick
we saw earlier), and is not in the set of allowed program counters.
Finally, we encode the three inference rules we came up with:
{{< codelines "Coq" "aoc-2020/day8.v" 119 126 >}}