Theory Summation (Isabelle2005: October 2005)

# Theory Summation

Up to index of Isabelle/HOL/Isar_examples

theory Summation
imports Main
begin

    (*  Title:      HOL/Isar_examples/Summation.thy
        ID:         $Id: Summation.thy,v 1.20 2005/05/02 17:00:11 nipkow Exp $
        Author:     Markus Wenzel
    *)

    header {* Summing natural numbers *}

    theory Summation
    imports Main
    begin

    text_raw {*
     \footnote{This example is somewhat reminiscent of the
     \url{http://isabelle.in.tum.de/library/HOL/ex/NatSum.html}, which is
     discussed in \cite{isabelle-ref} in the context of permutative
     rewrite rules and ordered rewriting.}
    *}

    text {*
     Subsequently, we prove some summation laws of natural numbers
     (including odds, squares, and cubes).  These examples demonstrate how
     plain natural deduction (including induction) may be combined with
     calculational proof.
    *}

    subsection {* Summation laws *}

    text {*
     The sum of natural numbers $0 + \cdots + n$ equals $n \times (n +
     1)/2$.  Avoiding formal reasoning about division we prove this
     equation multiplied by $2$.
    *}

    theorem sum_of_naturals:
      "2 * (∑i::nat=0..n. i) = n * (n + 1)"
      (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
    proof (induct n)
      show "?P 0" by simp
    next
      fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 2 * (n + 1)" by simp
      also assume "?S n = n * (n + 1)"
      also have "... + 2 * (n + 1) = (n + 1) * (n + 2)" by simp
      finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
    qed

    text {*
     The above proof is a typical instance of mathematical induction.  The
     main statement is viewed as some $\var{P} \ap n$ that is split by the
     induction method into base case $\var{P} \ap 0$, and step case
     $\var{P} \ap n \Impl \var{P} \ap (\idt{Suc} \ap n)$ for arbitrary $n$.

     The step case is established by a short calculation in forward
     manner.  Starting from the left-hand side $\var{S} \ap (n + 1)$ of
     the thesis, the final result is achieved by transformations involving
     basic arithmetic reasoning (using the Simplifier).  The main point is
     where the induction hypothesis $\var{S} \ap n = n \times (n + 1)$ is
     introduced in order to replace a certain subterm.  So the
     ``transitivity'' rule involved here is actual \emph{substitution}.
     Also note how the occurrence of ``\dots'' in the subsequent step
     documents the position where the right-hand side of the hypothesis
     got filled in.

     \medskip A further notable point here is integration of calculations
     with plain natural deduction.  This works so well in Isar for two
     reasons.
     \begin{enumerate}

     \item Facts involved in \isakeyword{also}~/ \isakeyword{finally}
     calculational chains may be just anything.  There is nothing special
     about \isakeyword{have}, so the natural deduction element
     \isakeyword{assume} works just as well.

     \item There are two \emph{separate} primitives for building natural
     deduction contexts: \isakeyword{fix}~$x$ and \isakeyword{assume}~$A$.
     Thus it is possible to start reasoning with some new ``arbitrary, but
     fixed'' elements before bringing in the actual assumption.  In
     contrast, natural deduction is occasionally formalized with basic
     context elements of the form $x:A$ instead.

     \end{enumerate}
    *}

    text {*
     \medskip We derive further summation laws for odds, squares, and
     cubes as follows.  The basic technique of induction plus calculation
     is the same as before.
    *}

    theorem sum_of_odds:
      "(∑i::nat=0..<n. 2 * i + 1) = n^Suc (Suc 0)"
      (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
    proof (induct n)
      show "?P 0" by simp
    next
      fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 2 * n + 1" by simp
      also assume "?S n = n^Suc (Suc 0)"
      also have "... + 2 * n + 1 = (n + 1)^Suc (Suc 0)" by simp
      finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
    qed

    text {*
     Subsequently we require some additional tweaking of Isabelle built-in
     arithmetic simplifications, such as bringing in distributivity by
     hand.
    *}

    lemmas distrib = add_mult_distrib add_mult_distrib2

    theorem sum_of_squares:
      "6 * (∑i::nat=0..n. i^Suc (Suc 0)) = n * (n + 1) * (2 * n + 1)"
      (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
    proof (induct n)
      show "?P 0" by simp
    next
      fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 6 * (n + 1)^Suc (Suc 0)" by (simp add: distrib)
      also assume "?S n = n * (n + 1) * (2 * n + 1)"
      also have "... + 6 * (n + 1)^Suc (Suc 0) =
        (n + 1) * (n + 2) * (2 * (n + 1) + 1)" by (simp add: distrib)
      finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
    qed

    theorem sum_of_cubes:
      "4 * (∑i::nat=0..n. i^3) = (n * (n + 1))^Suc (Suc 0)"
      (is "?P n" is "?S n = _")
    proof (induct n)
      show "?P 0" by (simp add: power_eq_if)
    next
      fix n have "?S (n + 1) = ?S n + 4 * (n + 1)^3"
        by (simp add: power_eq_if distrib)
      also assume "?S n = (n * (n + 1))^Suc (Suc 0)"
      also have "... + 4 * (n + 1)^3 = ((n + 1) * ((n + 1) + 1))^Suc (Suc 0)"
        by (simp add: power_eq_if distrib)
      finally show "?P (Suc n)" by simp
    qed

    text {*
     Comparing these examples with the tactic script version
     \url{http://isabelle.in.tum.de/library/HOL/ex/NatSum.html}, we note
     an important difference of how induction vs.\ simplification is
     applied.  While \cite[\S10]{isabelle-ref} advises for these examples
     that ``induction should not be applied until the goal is in the
     simplest form'' this would be a very bad idea in our setting.

     Simplification normalizes all arithmetic expressions involved,
     producing huge intermediate goals.  With applying induction
     afterwards, the Isar proof text would have to reflect the emerging
     configuration by appropriate sub-proofs.  This would result in badly
     structured, low-level technical reasoning, without any good idea of
     the actual point.

     \medskip As a general rule of good proof style, automatic methods
     such as $\idt{simp}$ or $\idt{auto}$ should normally be never used as
     initial proof methods, but only as terminal ones, solving certain
     goals completely.
    *}

    end

### Summation laws

theorem sum_of_naturals:

      2 * ∑{0..n} = n * (n + 1)

theorem sum_of_odds:

      (∑i = 0..<n. 2 * i + 1) = n ^ Suc (Suc 0)

lemmas distrib:

      (m + n) * k = m * k + n * k

      k * (m + n) = k * m + k * n

lemmas distrib:

      (m + n) * k = m * k + n * k

      k * (m + n) = k * m + k * n

theorem sum_of_squares:

      6 * (∑i = 0..n. i ^ Suc (Suc 0)) = n * (n + 1) * (2 * n + 1)

theorem sum_of_cubes:

      4 * (∑i = 0..n. i ^ 3) = (n * (n + 1)) ^ Suc (Suc 0)