Martin Escardo and Paulo Oliva 2011
\begin{code}
{-# OPTIONS --without-K #-}
module InfinitePigeon.InfinitePigeonLessEfficient where
open import InfinitePigeon.Addition
open import InfinitePigeon.Cantor
open import InfinitePigeon.Equality
open import InfinitePigeon.JK-LogicalFacts
open import InfinitePigeon.JK-Monads
open import InfinitePigeon.K-AC-N
open import InfinitePigeon.Logic
open import InfinitePigeon.LogicalFacts
open import InfinitePigeon.Naturals
open import InfinitePigeon.Order
open import InfinitePigeon.Two
\end{code}
29 April -3rd May 2011.
We prove a theorem that involves the classical existential
quantifier K∃ (called pigeonhole below). The proof uses excluded
middle and classical countable choice (i.e. choice formulated with
the classical existential quantifier), which is implemented using
the K-shift (more commonly known as the double negation shift) in
the modules InfinitePigeon.K-AC-N and InfinitePigeon.K-Shift.
In the module FinitePigeon.agda we derive a statement that uses the
intuitionistic quantifiers (and doesn't mention the double negation
modality K at all), using the classical result as a lemma. In the
module Examples.agda we run it.
This is the first version. Much improved ones are in the modules
InfinitePigeon.InfinitePigeonOriginal, InfinitePigeon.InfinitePigeon2011-05-12
and InfinitePigeon.InfinitePigeon. Also, this proof switches the case
analysis, and this causes funny subsequences in some cases.
Definition:
\begin{code}
Pigeonhole-Lemma : {R : Ω} → ₂ℕ → Ω
Pigeonhole-Lemma {R} α =
∃ \(b : ₂) → ∃ \(f : ℕ → ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K{R}(α(n + f n + 1) ≡ b)
pigeonhole-lemma : {R : Ω}
→ ∀(α : ₂ℕ) → K (Pigeonhole-Lemma α)
pigeonhole-lemma {R} α = K-∨-elim case₀ case₁ K-Excluded-Middle
where
A : Ω
A = ∀(n : ℕ) → K∃ \(i : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₁)
case₀ : A → K(Pigeonhole-Lemma α)
case₀ a = K-functor lemma₂ lemma₁
where
lemma₁ : K∃ \(f : ℕ → ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K(α(n + f n + 1) ≡ ₁)
lemma₁ = K-AC-ℕ (λ n → λ r → ∃-intro 0 (λ p → r)) a
lemma₂ : (∃ \(f : ℕ → ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K(α(n + f n + 1) ≡ ₁)) →
∃ \(b : ₂) → ∃ \(f : ℕ → ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K(α(n + f n + 1) ≡ b)
lemma₂ = ∃-intro ₁
case₁ : (A → R) → K(Pigeonhole-Lemma α)
case₁ p = lemma₇
where
lemma₃ :
K∃ \(n : ℕ) → (∃ \(i : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₁)) → R
lemma₃ = not-forall-not-implies-K-exists p
lemma₄-₁ :
(∃ \(n : ℕ) → (∃ \(i : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₁)) → R) →
∃ \(n : ℕ) → ∀ (i : ℕ) → (K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₁)) → R
lemma₄-₁ (∃-intro n e) = ∃-intro n (not-exists-implies-forall-not e)
lemma₄ :
K∃ \(n : ℕ) → ∀(i : ℕ) → (K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₁)) → R
lemma₄ = K-functor lemma₄-₁ lemma₃
lemma₅-₁ :
(∃ \(n : ℕ) → ∀ (i : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₁ → R)) →
∃ \(n : ℕ) → ∀ (i : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₀)
lemma₅-₁ (∃-intro n f) =
∃-intro n (λ i → not-1-must-be-0 (α(n + i + 1)) (f i))
lemma₅ :
K∃ \(n : ℕ) → ∀(i : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₀)
lemma₅ = K-functor lemma₅-₁ lemma₄
lemma₆-₁ :
(∃ \(n : ℕ) → ∀(i : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₀)) →
∃ \(n : ℕ) → ∀(i : ℕ) → K(α(i + n + 1) ≡ ₀)
lemma₆-₁ (∃-intro n h) = ∃-intro n (λ i → K-functor(lemma₆-₁-₁ i)(h i))
where
lemma₆-₁-₁ : ∀(i : ℕ) → α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₀ → α(i + n + 1) ≡ ₀
lemma₆-₁-₁ i r = two-things-equal-to-a-third-are-equal lemma₆-₁-₁-₁ r
where
lemma₆-₁-₁-₁ : α(n + i + 1) ≡ α(i + n + 1)
lemma₆-₁-₁-₁ =
compositionality (λ k → α(k + 1)) (addition-commutativity n i)
lemma₆ :
K∃ \(i : ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₀)
lemma₆ = K-functor lemma₆-₁ lemma₅
lemma₇-₁ :
(∃ \(i : ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K(α(n + i + 1) ≡ ₀)) →
∃ \(b : ₂) → ∃ \(f : ℕ → ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K{R}(α(n + f n + 1) ≡ b)
lemma₇-₁ (∃-intro i a) = ∃-intro ₀ (∃-intro (λ n → i) a)
lemma₇ : K(Pigeonhole-Lemma α)
lemma₇ = K-functor lemma₇-₁ lemma₆
\end{code}
Definition:
\begin{code}
Pigeonhole : {R : Ω} → ₂ℕ → Ω
Pigeonhole {R} α =
∃ \(b : ₂) → ∃ \(g : ℕ → ℕ) →
∀(i : ℕ) → g i < g(i + 1) ∧ K {R} (α(g i) ≡ b)
pigeonhole : {R : Ω}
→ ∀(α : ₂ℕ) → K(Pigeonhole α)
pigeonhole {R} α = K-functor lemma₀ (pigeonhole-lemma {R} α)
where
lemma₀
: (∃ \(b : ₂) → ∃ \(f : ℕ → ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → K(α(n + f n + 1) ≡ b))
→ ∃ \(b : ₂) → ∃ \(g : ℕ → ℕ) → ∀(n : ℕ) → g n < g(n + 1) ∧ K {R}(α(g n) ≡ b)
lemma₀ (∃-intro b (∃-intro f h)) =
∃-intro b (∃-intro g λ n → ∧-intro (lemma₁ n) (lemma₂ n))
where
g : ℕ → ℕ
g 0 = 0 + f 0 + 1
g(succ n) = let m = g n in m + f m + 1
lemma₁ : ∀(n : ℕ) → g n < g(n + 1)
lemma₁ n = less-proof(f(g n))
lemma₂ : ∀(n : ℕ) → K(α(g n) ≡ b)
lemma₂ 0 = h 0
lemma₂ (succ n) = h(g n)
\end{code}