coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: The Coq mailing list
List archive
[Coq-Club] Computing with Program Fixpoint using well-founded termination criteria
chronological Thread
- From: David Pereira <dpereira AT liacc.up.pt>
- To: Coq Club <coq-club AT inria.fr>
- Subject: [Coq-Club] Computing with Program Fixpoint using well-founded termination criteria
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 18:46:51 +0100
Hi list members,
I am currently implementing a decision procedure whose termination is based on a well-founded relation. I am using the Program Fixpoint command to implement such procedure. The code goes as follows:
<<<
Program Fixpoint dec(sh : set re * set re)(sig:set A)(h:dec_p sh)
{wf RAlg sh }:set re :=
match one_iter sh sig with
| (nv,l) as H0 =>
match l with
| Terminate => fst nv
| Continue => dec nv sig (hhh (fst sh) (snd sh) sig
(eee sh h) (fst nv) (snd nv) (refl_equal H0))
end
end.
(* Obligations proved and made transparent with Defined *)
>>>
The type [set re] is the type of finite sets of the Containers library by Lescuyer, the functions [hhh] and [eee] are defined transparently, the well-foundness proofs for [RAlg] where also made transparent, and the type [dec_p] is just the following Record:
<<<
Record dec_p(sh:set re * set re) : Type := {
H1 : fst sh[<=]PD r ;
H2 : snd sh[<=]PD r ;
D : \./ sh
}.
Definition hhh : forall s1 s2 sig,
dec_p (s1, s2) -> forall s s0, (s, s0, Continue) = one_iter (s1, s2) sig -> dec_p (s,s0).
Definition eee : forall sh, dec_p sh -> dec_p (fst sh,snd sh).
Inductive DisjP(p:set re * set re) : Type :=
| DisjP_0 : inter (fst p) (snd p) === {}%set -> DisjP p.
Notation "\./ p" := (DisjP p).
>>>
Everything went fine when developing all this stuff, but when it was time to execute [dec] within Coq, i.e, using Eval vm_compute in dec sh sig h, the evaluation simply seems to go on forever. I am pretty sure that it is due to well-foundness term used for the recursion. So, my question is : is there any standard tricks for enabling such a computation based on well-foundness when using Program Fixpoint? I know of a trick used by Thomas Braibant and Damien Pous that adds 2^n Acc_intro constructors in front of a well_foundedness proof, in order to keep the actual proof unreachable. Is this the standard trick, or there is any other one?
Sorry if the message is confusing. Also I was not able to isolate the problem ir order to provide a script.
Best regards to all,
David Pereira.
- [Coq-Club] Computing with Program Fixpoint using well-founded termination criteria, David Pereira
- Re: [Coq-Club] Computing with Program Fixpoint using well-founded termination criteria, Stéphane Lescuyer
- Re: [Coq-Club] Computing with Program Fixpoint using well-founded termination criteria, Matthieu Sozeau
Archive powered by MhonArc 2.6.16.