StandardLibrary

Pierre Letouzey edited this page Oct 27, 2017 · 37 revisions

The Coq Standard Library

ReflectionOnStandardLibrary mostly discusses organizational aspects

Reworking the Standard Library

Discussion on what users would like to see in a standard library.

Finite Types

Finite Types should be part of the Standard Library. Either InductiveFiniteTypes or FixpointFiniteTypes would be reasonable candidates for inclusion in the standard library.

Extensional Equality

There should be a library for extensional_equality for functions.

The axiom of functional extensionality is declared in Coq.Program.FunctionalExtensionality (see below). Is this what's meant here?

Axiom fun_extensionality_dep : forall A, forall B : (A -> Type),
  forall (f g : forall x : A, B x),
  (forall x, f x = g x) -> f = g.
Lemma fun_extensionality : forall A B (f g : A -> B),
  (forall x, f x = g x) -> f = g.

Wf

Acc_Iter and Fix_F are almost identical, but, until Coq 8.1, they had different theories following from them. From Coq 8.2, the notions are merged. See Coq.Init.Wf

Theory of relations

The Coq.Sets.Relations_* modules duplicate the theory of relations provided by Coq.Relations.Relations, with different theorems following from each. These notions should be unified. Coq.Relations.Rstar and Coq.Relations.Newman have been removed from SVN due to similar issues; they're still accessible from Coq-contribs. (Note that an inductive definition for R* is given in Coq.Relations.Relation_Operators, and Newman's lemma is proven in Coq.Sets.Relations_3_facts.)

Coq.Classes includes a typeclass-based theory of relations which depends on Coq.Relations. It probably has some duplications

Now that nested directories are being supported for theories/Numbers, the Wellfounded directory should probably be moved under Relations for clarity, as it was in Coq 6.x

Add a theory of heterogeneous relations R: A -> B -> Prop.

Add a functional_rel property: forall x: A, exists! y: B, R x y and some kind of coercion from CIC functions A -> B to functional relations. This is useful in math, logic, program specification...

Order stuff (8.3)

The theories library for Coq 8.3 adds some module-based support for decidable total orders. But the names chosen (OrderType and similar) are confusing and not entirely approprate, given that we do support more general order relations.

Consistent Definition of Operators

It would be nice if the standard library was more consistent with the definitions it uses. As it stands a < b for nat is an inductive definition while a < b for Z is defined to be a ?= b = LT.

I think that a consistent set of definitions would be easy to achieved by writing a general module (or modules) that are instantiated for various types (nat, binPos, Z, rationals, etc.)

More specifically for decidable total orders I am thinking of module with compare : A -> A -> comparison as primitive and with

Definition ltcompare (c:compare) : bool :=
match c with
| Lt => true
| Eq => false
| Gt => false
end.
(* ... *)
Definition lt (a b:A) : bool := ltcompare (compare a b)
(* ... *)
Coercion Is_true : bool >-> Sortclass

This process uses SmallScaleReflection advocated by GeorgesGonthier, i.e. coercing bools to propositions and treating them as equivalent when working on a decidable domain.

Is_true vs (true=)

Some may argue that the function (true=) should be the coercion because it allows access to the extensive array of rewrite tactics. I think the above definition is more beautiful. Discuss.

I would advocate for using the following definition as the canonical coercion from bool to Prop:

Inductive eq_true : bool -> Prop := is_eq_true : eq_true true.

It directly expresses what it means, it does not interfere with other potentially independent uses of true= and it is easy to use for rewriting expressions into true using destruct. [HH]

Arithmetic

Coq includes a plethora of arithmetical libraries (Arith, NArith, ZArith, Ints...), many of them implementing the same theories in different ways. The developments are highly redundant with each other and even internally incoherent.

Coq 8.2 will include a library of abstract theories for arithmetic, with support for concrete implementations. As a result, much of Arith, etc. will be all but deprecated, except for the concrete implementation of the theory axioms. The same considerations apply to ZArith, etc. The remaining sections should probably be rewritten so that they build on the abstract theories of N, Z, etc.

Set theory

Both the A -> Set and the forall I:Type, I -> A notions of subsets of A should be perused in the standard library.

Note that the Program feature relies on yet another(?) notion of subset: { x : T | P } is an x of type T endowed with a proof that x satisfies P. The Ensemble type from Coq.Sets seems to be a version of { x : T | P } endowed with an extensionality axiom. (is this correct???) How much of Coq.Sets can be rephrased without needing extensionality?

I also suggest a theory of decidable sets A -> bool (This is apparently provided by Coq.Sets.Uniset) and semi-decidable sets A -> conat where

CoInductive conat : Set :=
| coO : conat
| coS : conat -> conat.

Of course, we should try to establish connections among these notions whenever possible.

See Carlos Simpson, Computer theorem proving in math (arXiv:math/0311260) and Set theoretical mathematics in Coq (arXiv:math/0402336v1) for an overview.

Abstract algebra

The Coq standard library should include the abstract theory of the most common algebraic structures at least (monoids, groups, rings, fields). (Semi-)rings and fields are already defined as part of the ring and field tactic families.

Double-negation mapping of classical logic

It would be nice to standardize the double-negation embedding of classical logic into intuitionistic logic. This would make it easier to investigate the constructive implications of classical theories, by avoiding reliance on additional axioms.

  • Classical reasoning is currently required for much of Coq.Reals; it would be nice if it was rewritten to use double-negation.

Interfaces and Types

It should allow different views on the same subject - for example, different ways of the same subject definition. We need ability to define interface and to replace one it's implementation with another.

There should be way to define placeholders. Moreover, almost all current math structure should be explained with ability to prove it's later.

More coercions to allow type conversions - CoQ should automatically expand notation of n 5.4 to (nat_to_real n)5.4 .

Structure

It should handle very big amounts of theorems - around millions, while I suspect none of existing systems is targeted to that.

Proofs should not be readable as usual math proofs. Programs are much more readable than proofs. Comments to the theorems helps much more than clean proof. User should think in terms of theorems and tactics application, not in term of terms elimination or induction.

Organization

Easy-to-contribute library is much better. Although we should keep library clean and strict we should allow user to contribute in even small part. Nobody will write thousands lines of code before contribution. If every ten lines can be submitted, then we'll have much more active and wide community.

There should be clean list of common problems defined in both existing and to-be-written code. One should be able to easily find the problem and solve it. (See ProjectIdeas?)


Let there be less tactics but let them be more powerful than now. For example, replace tactic in theory can be used to replace one 1/2 with 2/4. Or even sin pi with sin 3*pi. But now it's not possible.

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Press h to open a hovercard with more details.