Web-Projects/blog-static
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Update dawn-in-coq to new math delimiters

Browse Source 
Signed-off-by: Danila Fedorin <danila.fedorin@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Danila Fedorin 2024-05-13 18:55:59 -07:00
parent e543904995
commit 5eb0d1548c
1 changed files with 47 additions and 47 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

94
content/blog/coq_dawn.md
View File

@ -17,13 +17,13 @@ and that's what I reached for when making this attempt.
#### Expressions and Intrinsics #### Expressions and Intrinsics
This is mostly the easy part. A UCC expression is one of three things: This is mostly the easy part. A UCC expression is one of three things:
* An "intrinsic", written \\(i\\), which is akin to a built-in function or command. * An "intrinsic", written \(i\), which is akin to a built-in function or command.
* A "quote", written \\([e]\\), which takes a UCC expression \\(e\\) and moves it onto the stack (UCC is stack-based). * A "quote", written \([e]\), which takes a UCC expression \(e\) and moves it onto the stack (UCC is stack-based).
* A composition of several expressions, written \\(e_1\\ e_2\\ \\ldots\\ e_n\\), which effectively evaluates them in order. * A composition of several expressions, written \(e_1\ e_2\ \ldots\ e_n\), which effectively evaluates them in order.
This is straightforward to define in Coq, but I'm going to make a little simplifying change. This is straightforward to define in Coq, but I'm going to make a little simplifying change.
Instead of making "composition of \\(n\\) expressions" a core language feature, I'll only Instead of making "composition of \(n\) expressions" a core language feature, I'll only
allow "composition of \\(e_1\\) and \\(e_2\\)", written \\(e_1\\ e_2\\). This change does not allow "composition of \(e_1\) and \(e_2\)", written \(e_1\ e_2\). This change does not
in any way reduce the power of the language; we can still in any way reduce the power of the language; we can still
{{< sidenote "right" "assoc-note" "write \(e_1\ e_2\ \ldots\ e_n\) as \((e_1\ e_2)\ \ldots\ e_n\)." >}} {{< sidenote "right" "assoc-note" "write \(e_1\ e_2\ \ldots\ e_n\) as \((e_1\ e_2)\ \ldots\ e_n\)." >}}
The same expression can, of course, be written as \(e_1\ \ldots\ (e_{n-1}\ e_n)\). The same expression can, of course, be written as \(e_1\ \ldots\ (e_{n-1}\ e_n)\).
@ -42,10 +42,10 @@ of an inductive data type in Coq.
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 12 15 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 12 15 >}}
Why do we need `e_int`? We do because a token like \\(\\text{swap}\\) can be viewed Why do we need `e_int`? We do because a token like \(\text{swap}\) can be viewed
as belonging to the set of intrinsics \\(i\\), or the set of expressions, \\(e\\). While writing as belonging to the set of intrinsics \(i\), or the set of expressions, \(e\). While writing
down the rules in mathematical notation, what exactly the token means is inferred from context - clearly down the rules in mathematical notation, what exactly the token means is inferred from context - clearly
\\(\\text{swap}\\ \\text{drop}\\) is an expression built from two other expressions. In statically-typed \(\text{swap}\ \text{drop}\) is an expression built from two other expressions. In statically-typed
functional languages like Coq or Haskell, however, the same expression can't belong to two different, functional languages like Coq or Haskell, however, the same expression can't belong to two different,
arbitrary types. Thus, to turn an intrinsic into an expression, we need to wrap it up in a constructor, arbitrary types. Thus, to turn an intrinsic into an expression, we need to wrap it up in a constructor,
which we called `e_int` here. Other than that, `e_quote` accepts as argument another expression, `e` (the which we called `e_int` here. Other than that, `e_quote` accepts as argument another expression, `e` (the
@ -69,12 +69,12 @@ Inductive value :=
| v_quot (e : expr). | v_quot (e : expr).
``` ```
Then, `v_quot (e_int swap)` would be the Coq translation of the expression \\([\\text{swap}]\\). Then, `v_quot (e_int swap)` would be the Coq translation of the expression \([\text{swap}]\).
However, I didn't decide on this approach for two reasons: However, I didn't decide on this approach for two reasons:
* There are now two ways to write a quoted expression: either `v_quote e` to represent * There are now two ways to write a quoted expression: either `v_quote e` to represent
a quoted expression that is a value, or `e_quote e` to represent a quoted expression a quoted expression that is a value, or `e_quote e` to represent a quoted expression
that is just an expression. In the extreme case, the value \\([[e]]\\) would that is just an expression. In the extreme case, the value \([[e]]\) would
be represented by `v_quote (e_quote e)` - two different constructors for the same concept, be represented by `v_quote (e_quote e)` - two different constructors for the same concept,
in the same expression! in the same expression!
* When formalizing the lambda calculus, * When formalizing the lambda calculus,
@ -88,9 +88,9 @@ but also such that here is no way to prove `IsValue (e_int swap)`, since _that_
a value. But what does "provable" mean, here? a value. But what does "provable" mean, here?
By the [Curry-Howard correspondence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence), By the [Curry-Howard correspondence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence),
a predicate is just a function that takes _something_ and returns a type. Thus, if \\(\\text{Even}\\) a predicate is just a function that takes _something_ and returns a type. Thus, if \(\text{Even}\)
is a predicate, then \\(\\text{Even}\\ 3\\) is actually a type. Since \\(\\text{Even}\\) takes is a predicate, then \(\text{Even}\ 3\) is actually a type. Since \(\text{Even}\) takes
numbers in, it is a predicate on numbers. Our \\(\\text{IsValue}\\) predicate will be a predicate numbers in, it is a predicate on numbers. Our \(\text{IsValue}\) predicate will be a predicate
on expressions, instead. In Coq, we can write this as: on expressions, instead. In Coq, we can write this as:
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 19 19 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 19 19 >}}
@ -178,8 +178,8 @@ Although the stacks are written in reverse order (which is just a consequence of
I hope that the correspondence is fairly clear. If it's not, try reading this rule out loud: I hope that the correspondence is fairly clear. If it's not, try reading this rule out loud:
> The rule `Sem_swap` says that for every two values `v` and `v'`, and for any stack `vs`, > The rule `Sem_swap` says that for every two values `v` and `v'`, and for any stack `vs`,
evaluating `swap` in the original stack `v' :: v :: vs`, aka \\(\\langle V, v, v'\\rangle\\), evaluating `swap` in the original stack `v' :: v :: vs`, aka \(\langle V, v, v'\rangle\),
results in a final stack `v :: v' :: vs`, aka \\(\\langle V, v', v\\rangle\\). results in a final stack `v :: v' :: vs`, aka \(\langle V, v', v\rangle\).
With that in mind, here's a definition of a predicate `Sem_int`, the evaluation predicate With that in mind, here's a definition of a predicate `Sem_int`, the evaluation predicate
for intrinsics: for intrinsics:
@ -189,8 +189,8 @@ for intrinsics:
Hey, what's all this with `v_quote` and `projT1`? It's just a little bit of bookkeeping. Hey, what's all this with `v_quote` and `projT1`? It's just a little bit of bookkeeping.
Given a value -- a pair of an expression `e` and a proof `IsValue e` -- the function `projT1` Given a value -- a pair of an expression `e` and a proof `IsValue e` -- the function `projT1`
just returns the expression `e`. That is, it's basically a way of converting a value back into just returns the expression `e`. That is, it's basically a way of converting a value back into
an expression. The function `v_quote` takes us in the other direction: given an expression \\(e\\), an expression. The function `v_quote` takes us in the other direction: given an expression \(e\),
it constructs a quoted expression \\([e]\\), and combines it with a proof that the newly constructed it constructs a quoted expression \([e]\), and combines it with a proof that the newly constructed
quote is a value. quote is a value.
The above two function in combination help us define the `quote` intrinsic, which The above two function in combination help us define the `quote` intrinsic, which
@ -222,8 +222,8 @@ true and false. Why don't we do the same thing?
{{< foldtable >}} {{< foldtable >}}
|UCC Spec| Coq encoding | |UCC Spec| Coq encoding |
|---|----| |---|----|
|\\(\\text{false}\\)=\\([\\text{drop}]\\)| {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 41 42 >}} |\(\text{false}\)=\([\text{drop}]\)| {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 41 42 >}}
|\\(\\text{true}\\)=\\([\\text{swap} \\ \\text{drop}]\\)| {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 44 45 >}} |\(\text{true}\)=\([\text{swap} \ \text{drop}]\)| {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 44 45 >}}
Let's try prove that these two work as intended. Let's try prove that these two work as intended.
@ -234,38 +234,38 @@ I invite you to take a look at the "shape" of the proof:
* After the initial use of `intros`, which brings the variables `v`, `v`, and `vs` into * After the initial use of `intros`, which brings the variables `v`, `v`, and `vs` into
scope, we start by applying `Sem_e_comp`. Intuitively, this makes sense - at the top level, scope, we start by applying `Sem_e_comp`. Intuitively, this makes sense - at the top level,
our expression, \\(\\text{false}\\ \\text{apply}\\), our expression, \(\text{false}\ \text{apply}\),
is a composition of two other expressions, \\(\\text{false}\\) and \\(\\text{apply}\\). is a composition of two other expressions, \(\text{false}\) and \(\text{apply}\).
Because of this, we need to use the rule from our semantics that corresponds to composition. Because of this, we need to use the rule from our semantics that corresponds to composition.
* The composition rule requires that we describe the individual effects on the stack of the * The composition rule requires that we describe the individual effects on the stack of the
two constituent expressions (recall that the first expression takes us from the initial stack `v1` two constituent expressions (recall that the first expression takes us from the initial stack `v1`
to some intermediate stack `v2`, and the second expression takes us from that stack `v2` to the to some intermediate stack `v2`, and the second expression takes us from that stack `v2` to the
final stack `v3`). Thus, we have two "bullet points": final stack `v3`). Thus, we have two "bullet points":
* The first expression, \\(\\text{false}\\), is just a quoted expression. Thus, the rule * The first expression, \(\text{false}\), is just a quoted expression. Thus, the rule
`Sem_e_quote` applies, and the contents of the quote are puhsed onto the stack. `Sem_e_quote` applies, and the contents of the quote are puhsed onto the stack.
* The second expression, \\(\\text{apply}\\), is an intrinsic, so we need to use the rule * The second expression, \(\text{apply}\), is an intrinsic, so we need to use the rule
`Sem_e_int`, which handles the intrinsic case. This, in turn, requires that we show `Sem_e_int`, which handles the intrinsic case. This, in turn, requires that we show
the effect of the intrinsic itself; the `apply` intrinsic evaluates the quoted expression the effect of the intrinsic itself; the `apply` intrinsic evaluates the quoted expression
on the stack. on the stack.
The quoted expression contains the body of false, or \\(\\text{drop}\\). This is The quoted expression contains the body of false, or \(\text{drop}\). This is
once again an intrinsic, so we use `Sem_e_int`; the intrinsic in question is \\(\\text{drop}\\), once again an intrinsic, so we use `Sem_e_int`; the intrinsic in question is \(\text{drop}\),
so the `Sem_drop` rule takes care of that. so the `Sem_drop` rule takes care of that.
Following these steps, we arrive at the fact that evaluating `false` on the stack simply drops the top Following these steps, we arrive at the fact that evaluating `false` on the stack simply drops the top
element, as specified. The proof for \\(\\text{true}\\) is very similar in spirit: element, as specified. The proof for \(\text{true}\) is very similar in spirit:
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 55 63 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 55 63 >}}
We can also formalize the \\(\\text{or}\\) operator: We can also formalize the \(\text{or}\) operator:
{{< foldtable >}} {{< foldtable >}}
|UCC Spec| Coq encoding | |UCC Spec| Coq encoding |
|---|----| |---|----|
|\\(\\text{or}\\)=\\(\\text{clone}\\ \\text{apply}\\)| {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 65 65 >}} |\(\text{or}\)=\(\text{clone}\ \text{apply}\)| {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 65 65 >}}
We can write two top-level proofs about how this works: the first says that \\(\\text{or}\\), We can write two top-level proofs about how this works: the first says that \(\text{or}\),
when the first argument is \\(\\text{false}\\), just returns the second argument (this is in agreement when the first argument is \(\text{false}\), just returns the second argument (this is in agreement
with the truth table, since \\(\\text{false}\\) is the identity element of \\(\\text{or}\\)). with the truth table, since \(\text{false}\) is the identity element of \(\text{or}\)).
The proof proceeds much like before: The proof proceeds much like before:
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 67 73 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 67 73 >}}
@ -276,19 +276,19 @@ Because of this, in this proof writing `apply Sem_apply...` is the same
as `apply Sem_apply. apply Sem_e_int`. Since the `Sem_e_int` rule is used a lot, this makes for a as `apply Sem_apply. apply Sem_e_int`. Since the `Sem_e_int` rule is used a lot, this makes for a
very convenient shorthand. very convenient shorthand.
Similarly, we prove that \\(\\text{or}\\) applied to \\(\\text{true}\\) always returns \\(\\text{true}\\). Similarly, we prove that \(\text{or}\) applied to \(\text{true}\) always returns \(\text{true}\).
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 75 83 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 75 83 >}}
Finally, the specific facts (like \\(\\text{false}\\ \\text{or}\\ \\text{false}\\) evaluating to \\(\\text{false}\\)) Finally, the specific facts (like \(\text{false}\ \text{or}\ \text{false}\) evaluating to \(\text{false}\))
can be expressed using our two new proofs, `or_false_v` and `or_true`. can be expressed using our two new proofs, `or_false_v` and `or_true`.
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 85 88 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 85 88 >}}
### Derived Expressions ### Derived Expressions
#### Quotes #### Quotes
The UCC specification defines \\(\\text{quote}_n\\) to make it more convenient to quote The UCC specification defines \(\text{quote}_n\) to make it more convenient to quote
multiple terms. For example, \\(\\text{quote}_2\\) composes and quotes the first two values multiple terms. For example, \(\text{quote}_2\) composes and quotes the first two values
on the stack. This is defined in terms of other UCC expressions as follows: on the stack. This is defined in terms of other UCC expressions as follows:
{{< latex >}} {{< latex >}}
@ -300,11 +300,11 @@ We can write this in Coq as follows:
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 90 94 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 90 94 >}}
This definition diverges slightly from the one given in the UCC specification; particularly, This definition diverges slightly from the one given in the UCC specification; particularly,
UCC's spec mentions that \\(\\text{quote}_n\\) is only defined for \\(n \\geq 1\\).However, UCC's spec mentions that \(\text{quote}_n\) is only defined for \(n \geq 1\).However,
this means that in our code, we'd have to somehow handle the error that would arise if the this means that in our code, we'd have to somehow handle the error that would arise if the
term \\(\\text{quote}\_0\\) is used. Instead, I defined `quote_n n` to simply mean term \(\text{quote}_0\) is used. Instead, I defined `quote_n n` to simply mean
\\(\\text{quote}\_{n+1}\\); thus, in Coq, no matter what `n` we use, we will have a valid \(\text{quote}_{n+1}\); thus, in Coq, no matter what `n` we use, we will have a valid
expression, since `quote_n 0` will simply correspond to \\(\\text{quote}_1 = \\text{quote}\\). expression, since `quote_n 0` will simply correspond to \(\text{quote}_1 = \text{quote}\).
We can now attempt to prove that this definition is correct by ensuring that the examples given We can now attempt to prove that this definition is correct by ensuring that the examples given
in the specification are valid. We may thus write, in the specification are valid. We may thus write,
@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ We used a new tactic here, `repeat`, but overall, the structure of the proof is
the definition of `quote_n` consists of many intrinsics, and we apply the corresponding rules the definition of `quote_n` consists of many intrinsics, and we apply the corresponding rules
one-by-one until we arrive at the final stack. Writing this proof was kind of boring, since one-by-one until we arrive at the final stack. Writing this proof was kind of boring, since
I just had to see which intrinsic is being used in each step, and then write a line of `apply` I just had to see which intrinsic is being used in each step, and then write a line of `apply`
code to handle that intrinsic. This gets worse for \\(\\text{quote}_3\\): code to handle that intrinsic. This gets worse for \(\text{quote}_3\):
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 108 122 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 108 122 >}}
@ -325,10 +325,10 @@ to write proofs like this itself. Here's what I came up with:
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 124 136 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 124 136 >}}
You don't have to understand the details, but in brief, this checks what kind of proof You don't have to understand the details, but in brief, this checks what kind of proof
we're asking Coq to do (for instance, if we're trying to prove that a \\(\\text{swap}\\) we're asking Coq to do (for instance, if we're trying to prove that a \(\text{swap}\)
instruction has a particular effect), and tries to apply a corresponding semantic rule. instruction has a particular effect), and tries to apply a corresponding semantic rule.
Thus, it will try `Sem_swap` if the expression is \\(\\text{swap}\\), Thus, it will try `Sem_swap` if the expression is \(\text{swap}\),
`Sem_clone` if the expression is \\(\\text{clone}\\), and so on. Then, the two proofs become: `Sem_clone` if the expression is \(\text{clone}\), and so on. Then, the two proofs become:
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 138 144 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 138 144 >}}
@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ Or, in Coq,
{{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 148 149 >}} {{< codelines "Coq" "dawn/Dawn.v" 148 149 >}}
This is the trick to how \\(\\text{rotate}_n\\) works: it creates a quote of \\(n\\) reordered and composed This is the trick to how \(\text{rotate}_n\) works: it creates a quote of \(n\) reordered and composed
values on the stack, and then evaluates that quote. Since evaluating each value values on the stack, and then evaluates that quote. Since evaluating each value
just places it on the stack, these values end up back on the stack, in the same order that they just places it on the stack, these values end up back on the stack, in the same order that they
were in the quote. When writing the proof, `solve_basic ()` gets us almost all the way to the were in the quote. When writing the proof, `solve_basic ()` gets us almost all the way to the
@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ placed back on the stack.
### `e_comp` is Associative ### `e_comp` is Associative
When composing three expressions, which way of inserting parentheses is correct? When composing three expressions, which way of inserting parentheses is correct?
Is it \\((e_1\\ e_2)\\ e_3\\)? Or is it \\(e_1\\ (e_2\\ e_3)\\)? Well, both! Is it \((e_1\ e_2)\ e_3\)? Or is it \(e_1\ (e_2\ e_3)\)? Well, both!
Expression composition is associative, which means that the order of the parentheses Expression composition is associative, which means that the order of the parentheses
doesn't matter. We state this in the following theorem, which says that the two doesn't matter. We state this in the following theorem, which says that the two
ways of writing the composition, if they evaluate to anything, evaluate to the same thing. ways of writing the composition, if they evaluate to anything, evaluate to the same thing.
@ -372,8 +372,8 @@ says:
I think that UCC is definitely getting there: formally defining the semantics outlined I think that UCC is definitely getting there: formally defining the semantics outlined
on the page was quite straightforward. We can now have complete confidence in the behavior on the page was quite straightforward. We can now have complete confidence in the behavior
of \\(\\text{true}\\), \\(\\text{false}\\), \\(\\text{or}\\), \\(\\text{quote}_n\\) and of \(\text{true}\), \(\text{false}\), \(\text{or}\), \(\text{quote}_n\) and
\\(\\text{rotate}_n\\). The proof of associativity is also enough to possibly argue for simplifying \(\text{rotate}_n\). The proof of associativity is also enough to possibly argue for simplifying
the core calculus' syntax even more. All of this we got from an official source, with only the core calculus' syntax even more. All of this we got from an official source, with only
a little bit of tweaking to get from the written description of the language to code! I'm a little bit of tweaking to get from the written description of the language to code! I'm
looking forward to reading the next post about the _multistack_ concatenative calculus. looking forward to reading the next post about the _multistack_ concatenative calculus.