DemoLambda.v

Set Implicit Arguments.
Require Export Coq.Program.Equality.
From Dblib Require Import DblibTactics DeBruijn Environments.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* The syntax of untyped lambda-terms. *)

Inductive term :=
  | TVar: nat -> term
  | TAbs: term -> term
  | TApp: term -> term -> term.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* The following definitions allow us to use the [DeBruijn] library. In
   particular, [traverse_term] defines the binding structure of terms. *)

Instance Var_term : Var term := {
  var := TVar (* avoid eta-expansion *)
}.

Fixpoint traverse_term (f : nat -> nat -> term) l t :=
  match t with
  | TVar x =>
      f l x
  | TAbs t =>
      TAbs (traverse_term f (1 + l) t)
  | TApp t1 t2 =>
      TApp (traverse_term f l t1) (traverse_term f l t2)
  end.

Instance Traverse_term : Traverse term term := {
  traverse := traverse_term
}.

Instance TraverseVarInjective_term : @TraverseVarInjective term _ term _.
Proof.
  constructor. prove_traverse_var_injective.
Qed.

Instance TraverseFunctorial_term : @TraverseFunctorial term _ term _.
Proof.
  constructor. prove_traverse_functorial.
Qed.

Instance TraverseRelative_term : @TraverseRelative term term _.
Proof.
  constructor. prove_traverse_relative.
Qed.

Instance TraverseIdentifiesVar_term : @TraverseIdentifiesVar term _ _.
Proof.
  constructor. prove_traverse_identifies_var.
Qed.

Instance TraverseVarIsIdentity_term : @TraverseVarIsIdentity term _ term _.
Proof.
  constructor. prove_traverse_var_is_identity.
Qed.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* The following lemmas characterize [lift] and [subst]. In principle, the
   user does not need to explicitly state these lemmas, and that is fortunate.
   Here, we prove these lemmas only in order to illustrate how the tactics
   [simpl_lift] and [simpl_subst] can simplify applications of [lift] and
   [subst]. *)

Lemma lift_TVar:
  forall w k x,
  lift w k (TVar x) = TVar (lift w k x).
Proof.
  intros. simpl_lift_goal. reflexivity.
Qed.

Lemma lift_TApp:
  forall w k t1 t2,
  lift w k (TApp t1 t2) = TApp (lift w k t1) (lift w k t2).
Proof.
  (* [simpl_lift_goal] can also be used as a hint for [eauto].
     This is useful when this equality goal occurs as a leaf
     within a larger automated proof. *)
  eauto with simpl_lift_goal.
Qed.

Lemma lift_TAbs:
  forall w k t,
  lift w k (TAbs t) = TAbs (lift w (1 + k) t).
Proof.
  eauto with simpl_lift_goal.
Qed.

Lemma subst_TVar:
  forall v k x,
  subst v k (TVar x) = subst_idx v k x.
Proof.
  intros. simpl_subst_goal. reflexivity.
Qed.

Lemma subst_TApp:
  forall v k t1 t2,
  subst v k (TApp t1 t2) = TApp (subst v k t1) (subst v k t2).
Proof.
  eauto with simpl_subst_goal.
Qed.

Lemma subst_TAbs:
  forall v k t,
  subst v k (TAbs t) = TAbs (subst (shift 0 v) (1 + k) t).
Proof.
  eauto with simpl_subst_goal.
Qed.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* Reduction semantics. *)

Inductive red : term -> term -> Prop :=
  | RedBeta:
      forall t1 t2 t,
      subst t2 0 t1 = t ->
      red (TApp (TAbs t1) t2) t
  | RedContextTAbs:
      forall t1 t2,
      red t1 t2 ->
      red (TAbs t1) (TAbs t2)
  | RedContextTAppLeft:
      forall t1 t2 t,
      red t1 t2 ->
      red (TApp t1 t) (TApp t2 t)
  | RedContextTAppRight:
      forall t1 t2 t,
      red t1 t2 ->
      red (TApp t t1) (TApp t t2).

(* The reduction judgement is compatible with weakening. *)

Lemma red_weakening:
  forall t1 t2,
  red t1 t2 ->
  forall x,
  red (shift x t1) (shift x t2).
Proof.
  induction 1; intros; subst; simpl_lift_goal;
  econstructor; eauto with lift_subst.
Qed.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* Working with closedness. *)

(* Again, we prove the following lemmas only in order to illustrate
   the use of the tactic [inversion_closed]. *)

Lemma inversion_closed_TVar:
  forall k x,
  x >= k ->
  closed k (TVar x) ->
  False.
Proof.
  intros. inversion_closed. eauto using closed_var.
Qed.

Lemma inversion_closed_TApp_1:
  forall t1 t2 k,
  closed k (TApp t1 t2) ->
  closed k t1.
Proof.
  intros. inversion_closed. assumption.
Qed.

Lemma inversion_closed_TApp_2:
  forall t1 t2 k,
  closed k (TApp t1 t2) ->
  closed k t2.
Proof.
  intros. inversion_closed. assumption.
Qed.

Lemma inversion_closed_TAbs:
  forall t k,
  closed k (TAbs t) ->
  closed (1 + k) t.
Proof.
  intros. inversion_closed. assumption.
Qed.

(* Reduction preserves closedness. *)

Lemma red_closed:
  forall t1 t2,
  red t1 t2 ->
  forall k,
  closed k t1 ->
  closed k t2.
Proof.
  induction 1; intros; subst; inversion_closed; try construction_closed.
  (* Case RedBeta. *)
  eauto using @subst_preserves_closed with typeclass_instances.
Qed.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* Simple types. *)

(* These types do not contain any variables. They have no binding structure. *)

Inductive ty :=
  | TyIota: ty
  | TyArrow: ty -> ty -> ty.

(* The typing judgement of the simply-typed lambda-calculus. *)

Inductive j : env ty -> term -> ty -> Prop :=
  | JVar:
      forall E x T,
      lookup x E = Some T ->
      j E (TVar x) T
  | JAbs:
      forall E t T1 T2,
      j (insert 0 T1 E) t T2 ->
      j E (TAbs t) (TyArrow T1 T2)
  | JApp:
      forall E t1 t2 T1 T2,
      j E t1 (TyArrow T1 T2) ->
      j E t2 T1 ->
      j E (TApp t1 t2) T2.

Hint Constructors j : j.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* The typing judgement is compatible with weakening, i.e., inserting a new
   term variable. *)

Lemma weakening:
  forall E t T,
  j E t T ->
  forall x U E',
  insert x U E = E' ->
  j E' (shift x t) T.
Proof.
  induction 1; intros; subst; simpl_lift_goal;
  econstructor; eauto with lookup_insert insert_insert.
Qed.

(* The typing judgement is compatible with substitution, i.e., substituting a
   well-typed term for a term variable. *)

Lemma substitution:
  forall E x t2 T1 T2,
  j (insert x T1 E) t2 T2 ->
  forall t1,
  j E t1 T1 ->
  j E (subst t1 x t2) T2.
Proof.
  do 5 intro; intro h; dependent induction h; intros; simpl_subst_goal;
  (* General rule. *)
  try solve [ econstructor; eauto using weakening with insert_insert ].
  (* Case TVar. *)
  unfold subst_idx. dblib_by_cases; lookup_insert_all; eauto with j.
Qed.

(* The typing judgement is preserved by reduction. Note that this is
   proved for an arbitrary environment [E]: we do not restrict our
   attention to closed terms. *)

Lemma type_preservation:
  forall t1 t2,
  red t1 t2 ->
  forall E T,
  j E t1 T ->
  j E t2 T.
Proof.
  induction 1; intros ? ? h; subst; dependent destruction h; eauto with j.
  (* Case RedBeta. *)
  match goal with h: j _ (TAbs _) _ |- _ =>
    inversion h; clear h; subst
  end.
  eauto using substitution.
Qed.

(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* The following lemmas are not needed here, but could be useful in other
   settings. *)

(* A term that is well-typed under the empty environment is closed. *)

Lemma j_closed:
  forall E t T,
  j E t T ->
  forall k,
  length E <= k ->
  closed k t.
Proof.
  induction 1; intros; construction_closed.
Qed.

(* A term that is well-typed under the empty environment is well-typed
   under every environment. *)

Lemma j_agree:
  forall E1 t T,
  j E1 t T ->
  forall E2 k,
  agree E1 E2 k ->
  length E1 <= k ->
  j E2 t T.
Proof.
  induction 1; intros; eauto with j length agree lia.
Qed.

Lemma j_empty:
  forall E t T,
  j (@empty _) t T ->
  j E t T.
Proof.
  eauto using j_agree with length agree.
Qed.