(**************************************************************) (* Copyright Dominique Larchey-Wendling [*] *) (* *) (* [*] Affiliation LORIA -- CNRS *) (**************************************************************) (* This file is distributed under the terms of the *) (* Mozilla Public License Version 2.0, MPL-2.0 *) (**************************************************************)

What is this library?

This sub-project is part of the larger project Coq-Kruskal described here: https://github.com/DmxLarchey/Coq-Kruskal.

Short Description

This library Kruskal-Veldman is an extension of Kruskal-AlmostFull and Kruskal-Higman libraries. It contains a detailed constructive/inductive account of Wim Veldman's intuitionistic proofs of a variant of Kruskal's tree theorems [1]. Actually the result is a mixture of Higman's and Kruskal's theorems.

From this result, one can easily derive, via simple surjective relational morphisms, various forms of Higman's and Kruskal's tree theorems, adapted to the actual implementation of rose trees using either lists, or vectors etc. This tasks is devoted to the project Kruskal-Theorems.

[1] An intuitionistic proof of Kruskal's theorem, Wim Veldman, 2004

Target audience

This library is not intended for direct usage, but it is possible to do so. Rather, Kruskal-Theorems contains the high-level theorems that are intended to be used directly.

On the other hand, Kruskal-Veldman, in addition of being an intermediate step, was specifically designed to be read/studied by those readers who wish to understand the internal details of this difficult proof. It comes from a major refactoring effort of a former monolithic Coq proof of the theorem, a project that has been since split into several sub-libraries, initiated after some requests have been formulated to access parts of that project specifically. Here is the current split: - Kruskal-Trees, extra library for lists, vectors, and rose trees; - Kruskal-Finite, library to manage finiteness (listability); - Kruskal-AlmostFull, the basic tools for A(lmost) F(ull) relations (up to Coquand's Ramsey's theorem); - Kruskal-Higman, the proof of Higman's lemma (or Higman's theorem for unary trees) (see below); - Kruskal-Veldman (in here) - Kruskal-Theorems, the proofs of Higman's and Kruskal's tree theorems for various implementations of bounded and rose trees, and of Vazsonyi's conjecture.

Usage

To use it directly or via Kruskal-Theorems, it can be installed via opam after importing the coq-opam/released package: console opam repo add coq-released https://coq.inria.fr/opam/released opam update opam install coq-kruskal-veldman Notice that, as with Kruskal-AlmostFull (and Kruskal-Higman btw), the library comes in Prop-bounded and Type-bounded flavors, both generated with the very same code base. To access eg. the Prop-bounded version in Coq source code, one should import via: coq From KruskalTrees Require Import idx vec vtree. From KruskalAfProp Require Import almostfull. From KruskalVeldmanProp Require Import vtree_embed veldman_theorem.

When the intention is to review the code base of Kruskal-Veldman with the help of an IDE for the Coq proof assistant, the procedure is a bit different. Then it is advised to download the current code base, either via the latest release, or cloning the main branch here, and unpacking it in say the Kruskal-Veldman directory. console git clone https://github.com/DmxLarchey/Kruskal-Veldman.git cd Kruskal-Veldman Then one should install the dependencies via: console opam install . --deps-only and then compile the eg. Type-bounded version of the library with: console make type while the Prop-bounded version could be obtained via make prop. Notice that only one can be compiled in a given directory because the code base in the same, except from one selector file base/base_implem.v which is copied either from implem/prop.v or implem/type.v depending on make prop or make type.

Then one can review the code base with say CoqIDE or vscoq. But see below for a detailed introduction on the proof implemented here.

What is the main result

The main result established here in veldman_theorem.v can be stated as follows: ```coq Variables (A : Type) (k : nat) (X : nat → rel₁ A) (R : nat → rel₂ A).

Inductive vtreeuptoembed : vtree A → vtree A → Prop := | vtreeuptoembedsubt t m y (w : vec _ m) i : t ≤ₖ w⦃i⦄ → t ≤ₖ ⟨y|w⟩ | vtreeuptoembedlt n x (v : vec _ n) y w : n < k → R n x y → vecfall2 (⋅ ≤ₖ ⋅) v w → ⟨x|v⟩ ≤ₖ ⟨y|w⟩ | vtreeuptoembedge n x (v : vec _ n) m y (w : vec _ m) : k ≤ n → R k x y → vecembed (⋅ ≤ₖ ⋅) v w → ⟨x|v⟩ ≤ₖ ⟨y|w⟩ where "s ≤ₖ t" := (vtreeupto_embed s t).

Theorem afsvtreeuptoembed : (∀n, k ≤ n → X n = X k) → (∀n, k ≤ n → R n = R k) → (∀n, n ≤ k → afs (X n) (R n)) → afs (wft X) (⋅ ≤ₖ ⋅). `` where -vtree _is the type of vector-based uniformA-indexed rose trees as defined in [Kruskal-Trees/../vtree.v](https://github.com/DmxLarchey/Kruskal-Trees/blob/main/theories/tree/vtree.v); -afsis the specialisation of theafpredicate to sub-types, as defined in [Kruskal-AlmostFull/../af.v](https://github.com/DmxLarchey/Kruskal-AlmostFull/blob/main/theories/af/af.v); - and [wft X : vtree A → Prop`](https://github.com/DmxLarchey/Kruskal-Trees/blob/main/theories/tree/vtree.v#L38) is the sub-type of _w(ell) f(ormed) t(rees) consisting in those t : vtree A such that each sub-tree ⟨x|v⟩ of t satisfies X n x where n is the arity, ie the length of v. So X restricts which labels in A can be used, not uniformly, but instead, depending on the arity. This variability is critical in the inductive proof; - also the relation R varies according to the arity but this is discussed in more details below.

The nested inductive relation vtree_upto_embed k R, also denoted ≤ₖ for short, is intermediate between - the product embedding for vectors (cf. vec_fall2) used in a nested way in Higman's theorem; - and the homeomorphic embedding for vectors (cf. vec_embed) used in a nested way in Kruskal's theorem.

The greater the parameter k, the closer ≤ₖ over approximates the product embedding, while ≤ₖ also lower approximates the homeomorphic embedding. But when k = 0, then ≤ₖ = ≤₀ is exactly the homeomorphic embedding. We recall that the nested product embedding alone is only AF for finitary trees when their breadth is bounded by constant (here k), which explain why it is extended in ≤ₖ using the homeomorphic embedding at arities above k;

Let us analyze the relation ⟨x|v⟩ ≤ₖ ⟨y|w⟩ in a more procedural way (in contrast with its inductive definition): 1. the first possibility is that ⟨x|v⟩ already ≤ₖ-embeds into one of the sub-trees w⦃_⦄ of ⟨y|w⟩, irrelevant of the arities or values of the roots x and y. This part is common to the embeddings of Higman's and Kruskal's theorems; 2. the second possibility applies to small arities (lesser than k): in that case, the arities of v and w are identical (equal to n) and n is smaller than k. Moreover, we must have v⦃i⦄ ≤ₖ w⦃i⦄ for i = 1,..,n, hence this direct product recursively uses ≤ₖ to compare the components of v and w. Finally the root label x must embed into the root label y using the relation R at index n, their common arity. This part mimics the embedding of Higman's theorem, but only for small arities; 3. the third (and last) possibility applies to large arities (greater than k): in that case, the arity n of v, that m of w, and k must satisfy k ≤ n ≤ m. Notice that n ≤ m is enforced when stating that v vector-embeds into w recursively using ≤ₖ to compare the components. Finally, to compare the roots x and y which may live at different arities, we use the relation R at (fixed) index k. But any other value above k will do since we assume that R is stable after index k: R k = R (k+1) = R (k+2) = ... This part mimics the embedding of Kruskal's theorem, however only for large arities.

The proof afs_vtree_upto_embed, in plain english that vtree_upto_embed k R is AF when all R₀,...,Rₖ are AF, is the cornerstone of the Kruskal-* project series and the most technical/difficult part of this series.

How difficult is this proof?

Those who have read Wim Veldman's account [1] of Kruskal's tree theorem know that this proof is very involved, possibly even obscure when one is not used to intuitionistic set theory where most objects are (encoded as) natural numbers. Converting that proof to type theory was a project we completed in 2015-2016 and published as a monolithic Coq development.

That former mechanization however was based on several sub-optimal design choices (for instance rose trees as nested lists instead of nested vectors) or a lack of some abstractions, leading to quite a lot code duplication. It gave a Coq-checkable proof script for a nice statement of the tree theorem and presented undeniable improvements over the pen&paper proof [1]: - it lifted the proof to a type theoretic settings with an inductive formulation of almost full relations; - it circumvented (and hence solved) the issue of Church thesis, which is an axiom used in [1] to recovered a stump from a proof of almost-fullness of a relation. Beware that we do not give a proof of Church thesis, we simply avoid its usage.

Still, we could not consider that former monolithic development as a clean enough reference work for a less painful learning path into the arguably complicated pen&paper intuitionistic account of Kruskal's theorem [1]: - too much proof code (duplication), sub-optimal proof automation; - too many edge cases, retrospectively due to bad design choices for the Coq implementation of analysis/evaluation; - as a consequence, too strong hypotheses for the statement of eg. what has now become veldman_afs_universe, where, in that former work of ours: - we required the decidability of X : nat → rel₁ A, but not of R : nat → rel₂ A !! - we had to carry that extra assumption all along the inductive steps of the proof with significant overhead; - this additional assumption was related to the implementation choice of the analysis/evaluations as Coq functions; - they are now converted to a single relation, and the decidability requirement could then be dropped.

In the current project, via good factorization, proof scripts cleanup and abstraction, we think that we provide a much better reference code for entering the intimacy of this beautiful proof, where some novel tools are hopefully abstracted at a suitable level.

The big picture of the proof

We describe the big picture of the proof at the cost of some vagueness here. At the end of the section, we point out keys aspects than must be refined before this sketch can be turn into a type-checkable Coq proof.

The proof sketch

Assuming k and relations R₀⇓X₀,...,Rₖ⇓Xₖ on sub-types of A, of which neither k nor the Rₙ⇓Xₙ are fixed, and for which we assume AF by afs Xₙ Rₙ (ie af Rₙ⇓Xₙ), we want to show afs (wft X) (vtree_upto_embed k R). Recall that the _ ⇓ _ notation denotes the restriction of a relation to a sub-type.

The first step is to proceed by "induction" on the sequence R₀⇓X₀,...,Rₖ⇓Xₖ, but this is not exactly well-founded induction. It would be more accurate to say that we proceed by induction on the sequence of proofs afs X₀ R₀,...,afs Xₖ Rₖ but we avoid the details at this stage. Also, we skip the description of the order used for this first induction. We just call it lexicographic order on afs predicates. This gives us our first (informally stated) induction hypothesis as: [IH1]: for any R'₀⇓X'₀,...,R'ₚ⇓X'ₚ st (∀n, afs X'ₙ R'ₙ) and which is lex.-smaller that R₀⇓X₀,...,Rₖ⇓Xₖ, we have afs (wft X') (vtree_upto_embed p R') Then, having this first induction hypothesis at our disposal, we want to show coq afs (wft X) (vtree_upto_embed k R) Applying the second constructor of afs, the proof goal becomes coq ∀t₀, wft X t₀ → afs (wft X) (vtree_upto_embed k R)↑t₀ We then proceed, in a second (nested) induction, structurally on t₀. Assuming t₀ = ⟨α|γ⟩ is of arity n, we have new induction hypotheses, namely: coq [IH2]: ∀i∈{1,...,n}, afs (wft X) (vtree_upto_embed k R)↑γ⦃i⦄

Now there is a case distinction between n = 0, 0 < n < k and k ≤ n. When n = 0, ie t₀ = ⟨α|∅⟩ is a leaf, there is a separate treatment which is easier and we do not discuss it here. In the two other cases, we proceed with a common overall sketch but the details differ: - veldman_higman.v describes the case 0 < n < k; - veldman_kruskal.v describes the case k ≤ n.

In both cases we build a new sequence of AF relations R'₀⇓X'₀,...,R'ₚ⇓X'ₚ where possibly p might differ from k; it can even be larger. However, this new sequence is built smaller than R₀⇓X₀,...,Rₖ⇓Xₖ in the lexicographic order mentioned above. These R'ₙ⇓X'ₙ are proved AF using the second induction hypotheses [IH2] and consequences of (Coquand's formulation of) Ramsey's theorem, ie. closure of AF under binary intersections, and also, when k ≤ n, Higman's lemma for vec_embed.

Hence, the first induction hypothesis [IH1] gives us afs X' (vtree_upto_embed p R') and we transfer the AF property via coq afs (wft X') (vtree_upto_embed p R') → afs (wft X) (vtree_upto_embed k R)↑⟨α|γ⟩ using a well chosen quasi morphism based on an analysis/evaluation relation between trees in wft X' and trees in wft X. Which concludes the proof sketch.

Some key issues that must be refined

Some key properties are not discussed in the above sketch: 1. to be able to build the new sequence R'₀⇓X'₀,...,R'ₚ⇓X'ₚ, the type A needs to be equipped with some structure allowing eg. to nest (trees of) itself from within, a bit like universes in set theory. Of course, an arbitrary type A does not have this property. - in [1], the choice is made for A to be nat, which is the natural choice for intuitionistic set theory, but this also limits the main result to nat, or to types that must be first embedded into nat; - we proceed otherwise: in universe.v we first embed an arbitrary type A into a richer type U := universe A that has the necessary structure for the recursive proofs in velman_higman.v, veldman_kruskal and veldman_universe.v; - then, after the recursive proof, we project in veldman_theorem.v the result for U := universe A back to the arbitrary type A by a simple surjective morphism, a trivial projection since U extends A. 2. the lexicographic induction needs extra information about the proof of afs Xₙ Rₙ to be able to make a case distinction when Rₙ is a full relation on Xₙ, and also when Xₙ is an empty sub-type. None of these conditions can be decided. In [1], stumps are used for this tasks. But while stumps can be computed from afs Xₙ Rₙ in the Type-bounded case, on the contrary they cannot be computed in the Prop-bounded case: - in [1], Church thesis is used specifically for this purpose, but the price is of an assumed axiom; - in here, we circumvent Church thesis by using the (new ?) notion of well-foundness up to a projection which allows us to access the above information (fullness of Rₙ or emptiness of Xₙ) in the internals of the recursive proof as soon as the output type does not state properties about this (hidden) information. 3. the construction of the "well-chosen quasi-morphism" is somewhat natural but not trivial at all and its properties can be difficult to establish, depending on which framework is used to implement it (eg list or vec based rose trees). The Kruskal-Finite library tools where specifically designed to allow for manageable proofs that those well-chosen quasi-morphisms have finite inverse images.

How to enter the recursive proof in more details

Our first remark would be: start with Higman's lemma as in Kruskal-Higman which was specifically designed as a downgrade of the more general cases of the proofs of Higman's theorem and Kruskal's tree theorem [1]. This proof concerns the restricted case of unary trees, which are just lists with an extra label on the empty list.

It could be made simpler/shorter (but still constructive), as done by previous authors like D. Fridlender [2], but that was precisely not the goal. The main goal of Kruskal-Higman was to implement the proof sketch and tools that are common with that of the current proof of afs_vtree_upto_embed above, but in a simpler/shorter context.

Once that proof of Higman's lemma is understood, the two main innovations for the proof of afs_vtree_upto_embed are as described above: - the use of a type that we call a universe and which is stable under all the type theoretic constructs that occur in the proof; - the implementation of the easier and more facile lexicographic induction principles using the notion of well foundness up to a projection, which allows to circumvent the use of Church's thesis.

The core and technical part of the proof are two files, veldman_higman.v and veldman_kruskal.v, of reasonable size (around 700 loc each), sharing the same structure as af_utree_embed_fun.v from Kruskal-Higman, which we insist, should rather be understood first before switching to those two more complicated variations.

To be fair, these two files veldman_{higman,kruskal}.v rely heavily on a library for the insertion and intercalation of dependent vectors, critically viewed as dependent inductive relations, and not dependent functions, to avoid the worst setoid hell I ever contemplated.

Recall that during the recursive proof, we want to establish that afs (wft X) (vtree_upto_embed k R)↑t₀: - veldman_higman.v constructs a quasi-morphism when the lifting tree t₀ has root arity strictly smaller than k, the one in the relation vtree_upto_embed k R also denoted ≤ₖ above; - veldman_kruskal.v constructs a quasi-morphism when the lifting tree t₀ has root arity greater than k; - also notice that the case of arity 0 for t₀ is considered in the separate file veldman_leaves.v because it is a simpler case for the recursive proof.

[2] Higman's lemma in type theory, Daniel Fridlender, TYPES 1996

Well foundness up to a projection

To be completed.