Basic Isabelle/Isar style (exercise 4.6)

Question

I'm interested in using Isabelle/Isar for writing proofs which are both human-readable and machine checked, and I am looking to improve my style and streamline my proofs.

prog-prove has the following exercise:

Exercise 4.6. Define a recursive function elems :: 'a list ⇒ 'a set and prove x ∈ elems xs ⟹ ∃ ys zs. xs = ys @ x # zs ∧ x ∉ elems ys.

Mimicking something similar to what I would write with pen and paper, my solution is

fun elems :: "'a list ⇒ 'a set" where
"elems [] = {}" |
"elems (x # xs) = {x} ∪ elems xs"

fun takeUntil :: "('a ⇒ bool) ⇒ 'a list ⇒ 'a list" where
"takeUntil f [] = []" |
"takeUntil f (x # xs) = (case (f x) of False ⇒ x # takeUntil f xs | True ⇒ [])"

theorem "x ∈ elems xs ⟹ ∃ ys zs. xs = ys @ x # zs ∧ x ∉ elems ys"
proof -
  assume 1: "x ∈ elems xs"
  let ?ys = "takeUntil (λ z. z = x) xs"
  let ?zs = "drop (length ?ys + 1) xs"
  have "xs = ?ys @ x # ?zs ∧ x ∉ elems ?ys"
  proof
    have 2: "x ∉ elems ?ys"
    proof (induction xs)
      case Nil
      thus ?case by simp
    next
      case (Cons a xs)
      thus ?case
      proof -
        {
          assume "a = x"
          hence "takeUntil (λz. z = x) (a # xs) = []" by simp
          hence A: ?thesis by simp
        }
        note eq = this
        {
          assume "a ≠ x"
          hence "takeUntil (λz. z = x) (a # xs) = a # takeUntil (λz. z = x) xs" by simp
          hence ?thesis using Cons.IH by auto
        }
        note noteq = this
        have "a = x ∨ a ≠ x" by simp
        thus ?thesis using eq noteq by blast
      qed
    qed

    from 1 have "xs = ?ys @ x # ?zs"
    proof (induction xs)
      case Nil
      hence False by simp
      thus ?case by simp
    next
      case (Cons a xs)
      {
        assume 1: "a = x"
        hence 2: "takeUntil (λz. z = x) (a # xs) = []" by simp
        hence "length (takeUntil (λz. z = x) (a # xs)) + 1 = 1" by simp
        hence 3: "drop (length (takeUntil (λz. z = x) (a # xs)) + 1) (a # xs) = xs" by simp
        from 1 2 3 have ?case by simp
      }
      note eq = this
      {
        assume 1: "a ≠ x"
        with Cons.prems have "x ∈ elems xs" by simp
        with Cons.IH
         have IH: "xs = takeUntil (λz. z = x) xs @ x # drop (length (takeUntil (λz. z = x) xs) + 1) xs" by simp
        from 1 have 2: "takeUntil (λz. z = x) (a # xs) = a # takeUntil (λz. z = x) (xs)" by simp
        from 1 have "drop (length (takeUntil (λz. z = x) (a # xs)) + 1) (a # xs) = drop (length (takeUntil (λz. z = x) xs) + 1) xs" by simp
        hence ?case using IH 2 by simp
      }
      note noteq = this
      have "a = x ∨ a ≠ x" by simp
      thus ?case using eq noteq by blast
    qed
    with 2 have 3: ?thesis by blast
    thus "xs = takeUntil (λz. z = x) xs @ x # drop (length (takeUntil (λz. z = x) xs) + 1) xs" by simp
    from 3 show "x ∉ elems (takeUntil (λz. z = x) xs)" by simp
  qed
  thus ?thesis by blast
qed

but it seems rather long. In particular, I think invoking law of excluded middle here is cumbersome, and I feel like there ought to be some convenient schematic variable like ?goal which can refer to the current goal or something.

How can I make this proof shorter without sacrificing clarity?

Answer 1

Not really an answer to your specific question, but I would nonetheless like to point out, that a more concise prove can still be comprehensible.

lemma "x ∈ elems xs ⟹ ∃ ys zs. xs = ys @ x # zs ∧ x ∉ elems ys"
proof (induction)
  case (Cons l ls)
  thus ?case
  proof (cases "x ≠ l")
    case True
    hence "∃ys zs. ls = ys @ x # zs ∧ x ∉ elems ys" using Cons by simp
    thus ?thesis using ‹x ≠ l› Cons_eq_appendI by fastforce
  qed (fastforce)
qed (simp)

Answer 2

Here's another shorter proof than your own:

fun elems :: ‹'a list ⇒ 'a set› where
  ‹elems [] = {}› |
  ‹elems (x#xs) = {x} ∪ elems xs›

lemma elems_prefix_suffix:
  assumes ‹x ∈ elems xs›
  shows ‹∃pre suf. xs = pre @ [x] @ suf ∧ x ∉ elems pre›
using assms proof(induction xs)
  fix y ys
  assume *: ‹x ∈ elems (y#ys)›
    and IH: ‹x ∈ elems ys ⟹ ∃pre suf. ys = pre @ [x] @ suf ∧ x ∉ elems pre›
  {
    assume ‹x = y›
    from this have ‹∃pre suf. y#ys = pre @ [x] @ suf ∧ x ∉ elems pre›
      using * by fastforce
  }
  note L = this
  {
    assume ‹x ≠ y› and ‹x ∈ elems ys›
    moreover from this obtain pre and suf where ‹ys = pre @ [x] @ suf› and ‹x ∉ elems pre›
      using IH by auto
    moreover have ‹y#ys = y#pre @ [x] @ suf› and ‹x ∉ elems (y#pre)›
      by(simp add: calculation)+
    ultimately have ‹∃pre suf. y#ys = pre @ [x] @ suf ∧ x ∉ elems pre›
      by(metis append_Cons)
  }
  from this and L show ‹∃pre suf. y#ys = pre @ [x] @ suf ∧ x ∉ elems pre›
    using * by auto
qed auto ― ‹Base case trivial›

I've used a few features of Isar to compress the proof:

1. Blocks within the braces {...} allow you to perform hypothetical reasoning.
2. Facts can be explicitly named using note.
3. The moreover keyword starts a calculation that implicitly "carries along" facts as they are established. The calculation "comes to a head" with the ultimately keyword. This style can significantly reduce the number of explicitly named facts that you need to introduce over the course of a proof.
4. The qed auto completes the proof by applying auto to all remaining subgoals. A comment notes that the subgoal remaining is the base case of the induction, which is trivial.