# Isomorphism: Isomorphism and Embedding

module plfa.part1.Isomorphism where

This section introduces isomorphism as a way of asserting that two types are equal, and embedding as a way of asserting that one type is smaller than another. We apply isomorphisms in the next chapter to demonstrate that operations on types such as product and sum satisfy properties akin to associativity, commutativity, and distributivity.

## Imports

import Relation.Binary.PropositionalEquality as Eq open Eq using (_≡_; refl; cong; cong-app) open Eq.≡-Reasoning open import Data.Nat using (ℕ; zero; suc; _+_) open import Data.Nat.Properties using (+-comm)

## Lambda expressions

The chapter begins with a few preliminaries that will be useful here and elsewhere: lambda expressions, function composition, and extensionality.

*Lambda expressions* provide a compact way to define functions without
naming them. A term of the form

```
λ{ P₁ → N₁; ⋯ ; Pₙ → Nₙ }
```

is equivalent to a function `f`

defined by the equations

```
f P₁ = N₁
⋯
f Pₙ = Nₙ
```

where the `Pₙ`

are patterns (left-hand sides of an equation) and the
`Nₙ`

are expressions (right-hand side of an equation).

In the case that there is one equation and the pattern is a variable, we may also use the syntax

```
λ x → N
```

or

```
λ (x : A) → N
```

both of which are equivalent to `λ{x → N}`

. The latter allows one to
specify the domain of the function.

Often using an anonymous lambda expression is more convenient than using a named function: it avoids a lengthy type declaration; and the definition appears exactly where the function is used, so there is no need for the writer to remember to declare it in advance, or for the reader to search for the definition in the code.

## Function composition

In what follows, we will make use of function composition:

_∘_ : ∀ {A B C : Set} → (B → C) → (A → B) → (A → C) (g ∘ f) x = g (f x)

Thus, `g ∘ f`

is the function that first applies `f`

and
then applies `g`

. An equivalent definition, exploiting lambda
expressions, is as follows:

_∘′_ : ∀ {A B C : Set} → (B → C) → (A → B) → (A → C) g ∘′ f = λ x → g (f x)

## Extensionality

Extensionality asserts that the only way to distinguish functions is
by applying them; if two functions applied to the same argument always
yield the same result, then they are the same function. It is the
converse of `cong-app`

, as introduced
earlier.

Agda does not presume extensionality, but we can postulate that it holds:

postulate extensionality : ∀ {A B : Set} {f g : A → B} → (∀ (x : A) → f x ≡ g x) ----------------------- → f ≡ g

Postulating extensionality does not lead to difficulties, as it is known to be consistent with the theory that underlies Agda.

As an example, consider that we need results from two libraries, one where addition is defined, as in Chapter Naturals, and one where it is defined the other way around.

_+′_ : ℕ → ℕ → ℕ m +′ zero = m m +′ suc n = suc (m +′ n)

Applying commutativity, it is easy to show that both operators always return the same result given the same arguments:

same-app : ∀ (m n : ℕ) → m +′ n ≡ m + n same-app m n rewrite +-comm m n = helper m n where helper : ∀ (m n : ℕ) → m +′ n ≡ n + m helper m zero = refl helper m (suc n) = cong suc (helper m n)

However, it might be convenient to assert that the two operators are actually indistinguishable. This we can do via two applications of extensionality:

same : _+′_ ≡ _+_ same = extensionality (λ m → extensionality (λ n → same-app m n))

We occasionally need to postulate extensionality in what follows.

More generally, we may wish to postulate extensionality for dependent functions.

postulate ∀-extensionality : ∀ {A : Set} {B : A → Set} {f g : ∀(x : A) → B x} → (∀ (x : A) → f x ≡ g x) ----------------------- → f ≡ g

Here the type of `f`

and `g`

has changed from `A → B`

to
`∀ (x : A) → B x`

, generalising ordinary functions to
dependent functions.

## Isomorphism

Two sets are isomorphic if they are in one-to-one correspondence. Here is a formal definition of isomorphism:

infix 0 _≃_ record _≃_ (A B : Set) : Set where field to : A → B from : B → A from∘to : ∀ (x : A) → from (to x) ≡ x to∘from : ∀ (y : B) → to (from y) ≡ y open _≃_

Let’s unpack the definition. An isomorphism between sets `A`

and `B`

consists
of four things:

- A function
`to`

from`A`

to`B`

, - A function
`from`

from`B`

back to`A`

, - Evidence
`from∘to`

asserting that`from`

is a*left-inverse*for`to`

, - Evidence
`to∘from`

asserting that`from`

is a*right-inverse*for`to`

.

In particular, the third asserts that `from ∘ to`

is the identity, and
the fourth that `to ∘ from`

is the identity, hence the names.
The declaration `open _≃_`

makes available the names `to`

, `from`

,
`from∘to`

, and `to∘from`

, otherwise we would need to write `_≃_.to`

and so on.

The above is our first use of records. A record declaration behaves similar to a single-constructor data declaration (there are minor differences, which we discuss in Connectives):

data _≃′_ (A B : Set): Set where mk-≃′ : ∀ (to : A → B) → ∀ (from : B → A) → ∀ (from∘to : (∀ (x : A) → from (to x) ≡ x)) → ∀ (to∘from : (∀ (y : B) → to (from y) ≡ y)) → A ≃′ B to′ : ∀ {A B : Set} → (A ≃′ B) → (A → B) to′ (mk-≃′ f g g∘f f∘g) = f from′ : ∀ {A B : Set} → (A ≃′ B) → (B → A) from′ (mk-≃′ f g g∘f f∘g) = g from∘to′ : ∀ {A B : Set} → (A≃B : A ≃′ B) → (∀ (x : A) → from′ A≃B (to′ A≃B x) ≡ x) from∘to′ (mk-≃′ f g g∘f f∘g) = g∘f to∘from′ : ∀ {A B : Set} → (A≃B : A ≃′ B) → (∀ (y : B) → to′ A≃B (from′ A≃B y) ≡ y) to∘from′ (mk-≃′ f g g∘f f∘g) = f∘g

We construct values of the record type with the syntax

```
record
{ to = f
; from = g
; from∘to = g∘f
; to∘from = f∘g
}
```

which corresponds to using the constructor of the corresponding inductive type

```
mk-≃′ f g g∘f f∘g
```

where `f`

, `g`

, `g∘f`

, and `f∘g`

are values of suitable types.

## Isomorphism is an equivalence

Isomorphism is an equivalence, meaning that it is reflexive, symmetric,
and transitive. To show isomorphism is reflexive, we take both `to`

and `from`

to be the identity function:

≃-refl : ∀ {A : Set} ----- → A ≃ A ≃-refl = record { to = λ{x → x} ; from = λ{y → y} ; from∘to = λ{x → refl} ; to∘from = λ{y → refl} }

In the above, `to`

and `from`

are both bound to identity functions,
and `from∘to`

and `to∘from`

are both bound to functions that discard
their argument and return `refl`

. In this case, `refl`

alone is an
adequate proof since for the left inverse, `from (to x)`

simplifies to `x`

, and similarly for the right inverse.

To show isomorphism is symmetric, we simply swap the roles of `to`

and `from`

, and `from∘to`

and `to∘from`

:

≃-sym : ∀ {A B : Set} → A ≃ B ----- → B ≃ A ≃-sym A≃B = record { to = from A≃B ; from = to A≃B ; from∘to = to∘from A≃B ; to∘from = from∘to A≃B }

To show isomorphism is transitive, we compose the `to`

and `from`

functions, and use equational reasoning to combine the inverses:

≃-trans : ∀ {A B C : Set} → A ≃ B → B ≃ C ----- → A ≃ C ≃-trans A≃B B≃C = record { to = to B≃C ∘ to A≃B ; from = from A≃B ∘ from B≃C ; from∘to = λ{x → begin (from A≃B ∘ from B≃C) ((to B≃C ∘ to A≃B) x) ≡⟨⟩ from A≃B (from B≃C (to B≃C (to A≃B x))) ≡⟨ cong (from A≃B) (from∘to B≃C (to A≃B x)) ⟩ from A≃B (to A≃B x) ≡⟨ from∘to A≃B x ⟩ x ∎} ; to∘from = λ{y → begin (to B≃C ∘ to A≃B) ((from A≃B ∘ from B≃C) y) ≡⟨⟩ to B≃C (to A≃B (from A≃B (from B≃C y))) ≡⟨ cong (to B≃C) (to∘from A≃B (from B≃C y)) ⟩ to B≃C (from B≃C y) ≡⟨ to∘from B≃C y ⟩ y ∎} }

## Equational reasoning for isomorphism

It is straightforward to support a variant of equational reasoning for
isomorphism. We essentially copy the previous definition
of equality for isomorphism. We omit the form that corresponds to `_≡⟨⟩_`

, since
trivial isomorphisms arise far less often than trivial equalities:

module ≃-Reasoning where infix 1 ≃-begin_ infixr 2 _≃⟨_⟩_ infix 3 _≃-∎ ≃-begin_ : ∀ {A B : Set} → A ≃ B ----- → A ≃ B ≃-begin A≃B = A≃B _≃⟨_⟩_ : ∀ (A : Set) {B C : Set} → A ≃ B → B ≃ C ----- → A ≃ C A ≃⟨ A≃B ⟩ B≃C = ≃-trans A≃B B≃C _≃-∎ : ∀ (A : Set) ----- → A ≃ A A ≃-∎ = ≃-refl open ≃-Reasoning

## Embedding

We also need the notion of *embedding*, which is a weakening of
isomorphism. While an isomorphism shows that two types are in
one-to-one correspondence, an embedding shows that the first type is
included in the second; or, equivalently, that there is a many-to-one
correspondence between the second type and the first.

Here is the formal definition of embedding:

infix 0 _≲_ record _≲_ (A B : Set) : Set where field to : A → B from : B → A from∘to : ∀ (x : A) → from (to x) ≡ x open _≲_

It is the same as an isomorphism, save that it lacks the `to∘from`

field.
Hence, we know that `from`

is left-inverse to `to`

, but not that `from`

is right-inverse to `to`

.

Embedding is reflexive and transitive, but not symmetric. The proofs are cut down versions of the similar proofs for isomorphism:

≲-refl : ∀ {A : Set} → A ≲ A ≲-refl = record { to = λ{x → x} ; from = λ{y → y} ; from∘to = λ{x → refl} } ≲-trans : ∀ {A B C : Set} → A ≲ B → B ≲ C → A ≲ C ≲-trans A≲B B≲C = record { to = λ{x → to B≲C (to A≲B x)} ; from = λ{y → from A≲B (from B≲C y)} ; from∘to = λ{x → begin from A≲B (from B≲C (to B≲C (to A≲B x))) ≡⟨ cong (from A≲B) (from∘to B≲C (to A≲B x)) ⟩ from A≲B (to A≲B x) ≡⟨ from∘to A≲B x ⟩ x ∎} }

It is also easy to see that if two types embed in each other, and the embedding functions correspond, then they are isomorphic. This is a weak form of anti-symmetry:

≲-antisym : ∀ {A B : Set} → (A≲B : A ≲ B) → (B≲A : B ≲ A) → (to A≲B ≡ from B≲A) → (from A≲B ≡ to B≲A) ------------------- → A ≃ B ≲-antisym A≲B B≲A to≡from from≡to = record { to = to A≲B ; from = from A≲B ; from∘to = from∘to A≲B ; to∘from = λ{y → begin to A≲B (from A≲B y) ≡⟨ cong (to A≲B) (cong-app from≡to y) ⟩ to A≲B (to B≲A y) ≡⟨ cong-app to≡from (to B≲A y) ⟩ from B≲A (to B≲A y) ≡⟨ from∘to B≲A y ⟩ y ∎} }

The first three components are copied from the embedding, while the
last combines the left inverse of `B ≲ A`

with the equivalences of
the `to`

and `from`

components from the two embeddings to obtain
the right inverse of the isomorphism.

## Equational reasoning for embedding

We can also support tabular reasoning for embedding, analogous to that used for isomorphism:

module ≲-Reasoning where infix 1 ≲-begin_ infixr 2 _≲⟨_⟩_ infix 3 _≲-∎ ≲-begin_ : ∀ {A B : Set} → A ≲ B ----- → A ≲ B ≲-begin A≲B = A≲B _≲⟨_⟩_ : ∀ (A : Set) {B C : Set} → A ≲ B → B ≲ C ----- → A ≲ C A ≲⟨ A≲B ⟩ B≲C = ≲-trans A≲B B≲C _≲-∎ : ∀ (A : Set) ----- → A ≲ A A ≲-∎ = ≲-refl open ≲-Reasoning

#### Exercise `≃-implies-≲`

(practice)

Show that every isomorphism implies an embedding.

postulate ≃-implies-≲ : ∀ {A B : Set} → A ≃ B ----- → A ≲ B

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `_⇔_`

(practice)

Define equivalence of propositions (also known as “if and only if”) as follows:

record _⇔_ (A B : Set) : Set where field to : A → B from : B → A

Show that equivalence is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `Bin-embedding`

(stretch)

Recall that Exercises
Bin and
Bin-laws
define a datatype `Bin`

of bitstrings representing natural numbers,
and asks you to define the following functions and predicates:

```
to : ℕ → Bin
from : Bin → ℕ
```

which satisfy the following property:

```
from (to n) ≡ n
```

Using the above, establish that there is an embedding of `ℕ`

into `Bin`

.

-- Your code goes here

Why do `to`

and `from`

not form an isomorphism?

## Standard library

Definitions similar to those in this chapter can be found in the standard library:

import Function using (_∘_) import Function.Inverse using (_↔_) import Function.LeftInverse using (_↞_)

The standard library `_↔_`

and `_↞_`

correspond to our `_≃_`

and
`_≲_`

, respectively, but those in the standard library are less
convenient, since they depend on a nested record structure and are
parameterised with regard to an arbitrary notion of equivalence.

## Unicode

This chapter uses the following unicode:

```
∘ U+2218 RING OPERATOR (\o, \circ, \comp)
λ U+03BB GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMBDA (\lambda, \Gl)
≃ U+2243 ASYMPTOTICALLY EQUAL TO (\~-)
≲ U+2272 LESS-THAN OR EQUIVALENT TO (\<~)
⇔ U+21D4 LEFT RIGHT DOUBLE ARROW (\<=>)
```