## Tutorial

- Introduction
- Monday 22 Nov 15:00 - 17:30, Original Completed Video
- Tuesday 23 Nov 15:00 - 16:30, Original Completed Video
- Wednesday 24 Nov 15:00 - 17:30, Original Completed Video
- Thursday 25 Nov 15:00 - 17:30, Original Completed Video

## Tutorials.Monday

{-# OPTIONS --allow-unsolved-metas #-} open import Agda.Primitive using (Level) module Tutorials.Monday where -- Two dashes to comment out the rest of the line {- Opening {- and closing -} for a multi-line comment -} -- In Agda all the tokens are tokenised using whitespace (with the exception of parentheses and some other symbols) -- Agda offers unicode support -- We can input unicode using the backslash \ and (most of the time) typing what one would type in LaTeX -- If in emacs, we can put the cursor over a characted and use M-x describe-char to see how that character is inputted -- ⊥ is written using \bot data ⊥ : Set where -- AKA the empty set, bottom, falsehood, the absurd type, the empty type, the initial object -- ⊥ : Set means ⊥ is a Type (Set = Type, for historical reasons) -- The data keyword creates a data type where we list all the constructors of the types -- ⊥ has no constructors: there is no way of making something of type ⊥ record ⊤ : Set where -- AKA the singleton set, top, truth, the trivial type, the unit type, the terminal object -- The record keyword creates a record type -- Records have a single constructor -- To create a record you must populate all of its fields -- ⊤ has no fields: it is trivial to make one, and contains no information constructor tt data Bool : Set where -- Bool has two constructors: one bit worth of information true : Bool false : Bool -------- -- Simple composite types -------- module Simple where record _×_ (A : Set) (B : Set) : Set where -- AKA logical and, product type -- Agda offers support for mixfix notation -- We use the underscores to specify where the arguments goal -- In this case the arguments are the type parameters A and B, so we can write A × B -- A × B models a type packing up *both* an A *and* a B -- A and B are type parameters, both of type Set, i.e. types -- A × B itself is of type Set, i.e. a type -- We use the single record constructor _,_ to make something of type A × B -- The constructor _,_ takes two parameters: the fields fst and snd, of type A and B, respectively -- If we have a of type A and b of type B, then (a , b) is of type A × B constructor _,_ field fst : A snd : B -- Agda has a very expressive module system (more on modules later) -- Every record has a module automatically attached to it -- Opening a record exposes its constructor and it fields -- The fields are projection functions out of the record -- In the case of _×_, it exposes -- fst : A × B → A -- snd : A × B → B open _×_ data _⊎_ (A B : Set) : Set where -- AKA logical or, sum type, disjoint union -- A ⊎ B models a type packing *either* an A *or* a B -- A and B are type parameters, both of type Set, i.e. types -- A ⊎ B itself is of type Set, i.e. a type -- A ⊎ B has two constructors: inl and inr -- The constructor inl takes something of type A as an argument and returns something of type A ⊎ B -- The constructor inr takes something of type B as an argument and returns something of type A ⊎ B -- We can make something of type A ⊎ B either by using inl and supplying an A, or by using inr and supplying a B inl : A → A ⊎ B inr : B → A ⊎ B -------- -- Some simple proofs! -------- -- In constructive mathematics logical implication is modelled as function types -- An object of type A → B shows that assuming an object of type A, we can construct an object of type B -- Below we want to show that assuming an object of type A × B, we can construct an object of type A -- We want to show that this is the case regardless of what A and B actually are -- We do this using a polymorphic function that is parametrised over A and B, both of type Set -- We use curly braces {} to make these function parameters implicit -- When we call this function we won't have to supply the arguments A and B unless we want to -- When we define this function we won't have to accept A and B as arguments unless we want to -- The first line below gives the type of the function get-fst -- The second line gives its definition get-fst : {A : Set} {B : Set} → A × B → A get-fst x = {!!} -- Agda is an *interactive* proof assistant -- We don't provide our proofs/programs all at once: we develop them iteratively -- We write ? where we don't yet have a program to provide, and we reload the file -- What we get back is a hole where we can place the cursor and have a conversation with Agda -- ctrl+c is the prefix that we use to communicate with Agda -- ctrl+c ctrl+l reload the file -- ctrl+c ctrl+, shows the goal and the context -- ctrl+c ctrl+. shows the goal, the context, and what we have so far -- ctrl+c ctrl+c pattern matches against a given arguments -- ctrl+c ctrl+space fill in hole -- ctrl+c ctrl+r refines the goal: it will ask Agda to insert the first constructor we need -- ctrl+c ctrl+a try to automatically fulfill the goal -- key bindings: https://agda.readthedocs.io/en/v2.6.1.3/getting-started/quick-guide.html get-snd : ∀ {A B} → A × B → B get-snd x = {!!} -- The variable keyword enables us to declare convention for notation -- Unless said otherwise, whenever we refer to A, B or C and these are not bound, we will refer to objects of type Set variable ℓ : Level A B C : Set ℓ -- Notice how we don't have to declare A, B and C anymore curry : (A → B → C) → (A × B → C) curry f = {!!} uncurry : (A × B → C) → (A → B → C) uncurry f = {!!} ×-comm : A × B → B × A ×-comm = {!!} ×-assoc : (A × B) × C → A × (B × C) ×-assoc = {!!} -- Pattern matching has to be exhaustive: all cases must be addressed ⊎-comm : A ⊎ B → B ⊎ A ⊎-comm = {!!} ⊎-assoc : (A ⊎ B) ⊎ C → A ⊎ (B ⊎ C) ⊎-assoc = {!!} -- If there are no cases to be addressed there is nothing for us left to do -- If you believe ⊥ exist you believe anything absurd : ⊥ → A absurd a = {!!} -- In constructive mathematics all proofs are constructions -- How do we show that an object of type A cannot possibly be constructed, while using a construction to show so? -- We take the cannonically impossible-to-construct object ⊥, and show that if we were to assume the existence of A, we could use it to construct ⊥ ¬_ : Set ℓ → Set ℓ ¬ A = A → ⊥ -- In classical logic double negation can be eliminated: ¬ ¬ A ⇒ A -- That is however not the case in constructive mathematics: -- The proof ¬ ¬ A is a function that takes (A → ⊥) into ⊥, and offers no witness for A -- The opposite direction is however constructive: ⇒¬¬ : A → ¬ ¬ A ⇒¬¬ = {!!} -- Moreover, double negation can be eliminated from non-witnesses ¬¬¬⇒¬ : ¬ ¬ ¬ A → ¬ A ¬¬¬⇒¬ = {!!} -- Here we have a choice of two programs to write ×-⇒-⊎₁ : A × B → A ⊎ B ×-⇒-⊎₁ = {!!} ×-⇒-⊎₂ : A × B → A ⊎ B ×-⇒-⊎₂ = {!!} -- A little more involved -- Show that the implication (A ⊎ B → A × B) is not always true for all A and Bs ⊎-⇏-× : ¬ (∀ {A B} → A ⊎ B → A × B) ⊎-⇏-× f = {!!} variable ℓ : Level A B C : Set ℓ -------- -- Inductive data types -------- data ℕ : Set where -- The type of unary natural numbers -- The zero constructor takes no arguments; the base case -- The suc constructor takes one argument: an existing natural number; the inductive case -- We represent natural numbers by using ticks: ||| ≈ 3 -- zero: no ticks -- suc: one more tick -- suc (suc (suc zero)) ≈ ||| ≈ 3 zero : ℕ suc : ℕ → ℕ three : ℕ three = suc (suc (suc zero)) -- Compiler pragmas allow us to give instructions to Agda -- They are introduced with an opening {-# and a closing #-} -- Here we the pragma BUILTIN to tell Agda to use ℕ as the builtin type for natural numbers -- This allows us to say 3 instead of suc (suc (suc zero)) {-# BUILTIN NATURAL ℕ #-} three' : ℕ three' = 3 -- Whenever we say n or m and they haven't been bound, they refer to natural numbers variable n m l : ℕ -- Brief interlude: we declare the fixity of certain functions -- By default, all definitions have precedence 20 -- The higher the precedence, the tighter they bind -- Here we also declare that _+_ is left associative, i.e. 1 + 2 + 3 is parsed as (1 + 2) + 3 infixl 20 _+_ -- Define addition of natural numbers by structural recursion _+_ : ℕ → ℕ → ℕ x + y = {!!} -- In functions recursion must always occur on structurally smaller values (otherwise the computation might never terminate) -- In Agda *all computations must terminate* -- We can tell Agda to ignore non-termination with this pragma {-# TERMINATING #-} non-terminating : ℕ → ℕ non-terminating n = non-terminating n -- However, doing so would allow us to define elements of the type ⊥ -- This is not considered safe: running Agda with the --safe option will make type-checking fail {-# TERMINATING #-} loop : ⊥ loop = loop -- Use structural recursion to define multiplication _*_ : ℕ → ℕ → ℕ x * y = {!!} -- The module keyword allows us to define modules (namespaces) module List where infixr 15 _∷_ _++_ data List (A : Set) : Set where -- Lists are another example of inductive types -- The type parameter A is the type of every element in the list -- They are like natural numbers, but the successor case contains an A [] : List A _∷_ : A → List A → List A -- List concatenation by structural recursion _++_ : List A → List A → List A [] ++ ys = ys (x ∷ xs) ++ ys = x ∷ (xs ++ ys) -- Apply a function (A → B) to every element of a list map : (A → B) → List A → List B map = {!!} -- A base case B and an inductive case A → B → B is all we need to take a List A and make a B foldr : (A → B → B) → B → List A → B foldr f b [] = b foldr f b (x ∷ xs) = f x (foldr f b xs) -------- -- Dependent Types -------- -- Dependent types are types that depend on values, objects of another type -- Dependent types allow us to model predicates on types -- A predicate P on a type A is a function taking elements of A into types Pred : Set → Set₁ Pred A = A → Set -- Let us define a predicate on ℕ that models the even numbers -- Even numbers are taken to the type ⊤, which is trivial to satisfy -- Odd numbers are taken to the type ⊥, which is impossible to satisfy Even : Pred ℕ Even x = {!!} -- We can now use Even as a precondition on a previous arguments -- Here we bind the first argument of type ℕ to the name n -- We then use n as an argument to the type Even -- As we expose the constructors of n, Even will compute half : (n : ℕ) → Even n → ℕ half n n-even = {!!} -- There is an alternative way of definiting dependent types -- EvenData is a data type indexed by elements of the type ℕ -- That is, for every (n : ℕ), EvenData n is a type -- The constructor zero constructs an element of the type EvenData zero -- The constructor 2+_ takes an element of the type EvenData n and constructs one of type EvenData (suc (suc n)) -- Note that there is no constructors that constructs elements of the type Evendata (suc zero) data EvenData : ℕ → Set where -- Pred ℕ zero : EvenData zero 2+_ : EvenData n → EvenData (suc (suc n)) -- We can use EvenData as a precondition too -- The difference is that while Even n computes automatically, we have to take EvenData n appart by pattern matching -- It leaves a trace of *why* n is even half-data : (n : ℕ) → EvenData n → ℕ half-data n n-even = {!!} -- Function composition: (f ∘ g) composes two functions f and g -- The result takes the input, feeds it through g, then feeds the result through f infixr 20 _∘_ _∘_ : (B → C) → (A → B) → (A → C) (f ∘ g) x = f (g x) -------- -- Example of common uses of dependent types -------- module Fin where -- The type Fin n has n distinct inhabitants data Fin : ℕ → Set where zero : Fin (suc n) suc : Fin n → Fin (suc n) -- Note that there is no constructor for Fin zero Fin0 : Fin zero → ⊥ Fin0 x = {!!} -- We can erase the type level information to get a ℕ back to-ℕ : Fin n → ℕ to-ℕ zero = zero to-ℕ (suc x) = suc (to-ℕ x) module Vec where open Fin -- Vectors are like lists, but they keep track of their length -- The type Vec A n is the type of lists of length n containing values of type A -- Notice that while A is a parameter (remains unchanged in all constructors), n is an index -- We can bind parameters to names (since they don't change) but we cannot bind indices data Vec (A : Set) : ℕ → Set where [] : Vec A zero _∷_ : A → Vec A n → Vec A (suc n) -- Now we can define concatenation, but giving more assurances about the resulting length _++_ : Vec A n → Vec A m → Vec A (n + m) xs ++ ys = {!!} map : (A → B) → Vec A n → Vec B n map = {!!} -- Given a vector and a fin, we can use the latter as a lookup index into the former -- Question: what happens if there vector is empty? _!_ : Vec A n → Fin n → A xs ! i = {!!} -- A vector Vec A n is just the inductive form of a function Fin n → A tabulate : ∀ {n} → (Fin n → A) → Vec A n tabulate {n = zero} f = [] tabulate {n = suc n} f = f zero ∷ tabulate (f ∘ suc) untabulate : Vec A n → (Fin n → A) untabulate [] () untabulate (x ∷ xs) zero = x untabulate (x ∷ xs) (suc i) = untabulate xs i -- Predicates need not be unary, they can be binary! (i.e. relations) Rel : Set → Set₁ Rel A = A → A → Set -- Question: how many proofs are there for any n ≤ m data _≤_ : Rel ℕ where z≤n : zero ≤ n s≤s : n ≤ m → suc n ≤ suc m _<_ : ℕ → ℕ → Set n < m = suc n ≤ m -- _≤_ is reflexive and transitive ≤-refl : ∀ n → n ≤ n ≤-refl n = {!!} ≤-trans : n ≤ m → m ≤ l → n ≤ l ≤-trans a b = {!!} ----------- -- Propositional Equality ----------- -- Things get interesting: we can use type indices to define propositional equality -- For any (x y : A) the type x ≡ y is a proof showing that x and y are in fact definitionally equal -- It has a single constructor refl which limits the ways of making something of type x ≡ y to those where x and y are in fact the same, i.e. x ≡ x -- When we pattern match against something of type x ≡ y, the constructor refl will make x and y unify: Agda will internalise the equality infix 10 _≡_ -- \== ≡ data _≡_ (x : A) : A → Set where refl : x ≡ x {-# BUILTIN EQUALITY _≡_ #-} -- Definitional equality holds when the two sides compute to the same symbols 2+2≡4 : 2 + 2 ≡ 4 2+2≡4 = {!!} -- Because of the way in which defined _+_, zero + x ≡ x holds definitionally (the first case in the definition) +-idˡ : ∀ x → (zero + x) ≡ x +-idˡ x = {!!} -- We show that equality respects congruence cong : {x y : A} (f : A → B) → x ≡ y → f x ≡ f y cong f p = {!!} -- However this does not hold definitionally -- We need to use proof by induction -- We miss some pieces to prove this +-idʳ : ∀ x → (x + zero) ≡ x +-idʳ x = {!!} -- Propositional equality is reflexive by construction, here we show it is also symmetric and transitive sym : {x y : A} → x ≡ y → y ≡ x sym p = {!!} trans : {x y z : A} → x ≡ y → y ≡ z → x ≡ z trans p q = {!!} -- A binary version that will come in use later on cong₂ : {x y : A} {w z : B} (f : A → B → C) → x ≡ y → w ≡ z → f x w ≡ f y z cong₂ f refl refl = refl -- Leibniz equality, transport subst : {x y : A} {P : Pred A} → x ≡ y → P x → P y subst eq p = {!!} -- Now we can start proving slightly more interesting things! +-assoc : ∀ x y z → (x + y) + z ≡ x + (y + z) +-assoc x y z = {!!} -- Introduce underscores on the RHS +-comm : ∀ x y → x + y ≡ y + x +-comm x zero = {!!} +-comm x (suc y) = {!!} -- The keyword where allows us to introduce local definitions where +-suc : ∀ x y → x + suc y ≡ suc (x + y) +-suc x y = {!!} ----------- -- Some tooling for equational reasoning ----------- infix 3 _∎ infixr 2 step-≡ infix 1 begin_ begin_ : ∀{x y : A} → x ≡ y → x ≡ y begin_ x≡y = x≡y step-≡ : ∀ (x {y z} : A) → y ≡ z → x ≡ y → x ≡ z step-≡ _ y≡z x≡y = trans x≡y y≡z syntax step-≡ x y≡z x≡y = x ≡⟨ x≡y ⟩ y≡z _∎ : ∀ (x : A) → x ≡ x _∎ _ = refl -- The equational resoning style allows us to explicitly write down the goals at each stage -- This starts to look like what one would do on the whiteboard +-comm′ : ∀ x y → x + y ≡ y + x +-comm′ x zero = {!!} +-comm′ x (suc y) = begin (x + suc y) ≡⟨ {!!} ⟩ suc (x + y) ≡⟨ {!!} ⟩ suc (y + x) ∎