# Assignment2: TSPL Assignment 2

module Assignment2 where

## YOUR NAME AND EMAIL GOES HERE

## Introduction

You must do *all* the exercises labelled “(recommended)”.

Exercises labelled “(stretch)” are there to provide an extra challenge. You don’t need to do all of these, but should attempt at least a few.

Exercises labelled “(practice)” are included for those who want extra practice.

Submit your homework using the “submit” command.

```
submit tspl cw2 Assignment2.lagda.md
```

Please ensure your files execute correctly under Agda!

## Good Scholarly Practice.

Please remember the University requirement as regards all assessed work. Details about this can be found at:

http://web.inf.ed.ac.uk/infweb/admin/policies/academic-misconduct

Furthermore, you are required to take reasonable measures to protect your assessed work from unauthorised access. For example, if you put any such work on a public repository then you must set access permissions appropriately (generally permitting access only to yourself, or your group in the case of group practicals).

## Imports

import Relation.Binary.PropositionalEquality as Eq open Eq using (_≡_; refl; cong; sym) open Eq.≡-Reasoning using (begin_; _≡⟨⟩_; step-≡; _∎) open import Data.Nat using (ℕ; zero; suc; _+_; _*_; _∸_; _≤_; z≤n; s≤s) open import Data.Nat.Properties using (+-assoc; +-identityʳ; +-suc; +-comm; ≤-refl; ≤-trans; ≤-antisym; ≤-total; +-monoʳ-≤; +-monoˡ-≤; +-mono-≤) open import Data.Product using (_×_; proj₁; proj₂) renaming (_,_ to ⟨_,_⟩) open import Data.Unit using (⊤; tt) open import Data.Sum using (_⊎_; inj₁; inj₂) renaming ([_,_] to case-⊎) open import Data.Empty using (⊥; ⊥-elim) open import Data.Bool.Base using (Bool; true; false; T; _∧_; _∨_; not) open import Relation.Nullary using (¬_; Dec; yes; no) open import Relation.Nullary.Decidable using (⌊_⌋; toWitness; fromWitness) open import Relation.Nullary.Negation using (¬?) open import Relation.Nullary.Product using (_×-dec_) open import Relation.Nullary.Sum using (_⊎-dec_) open import Relation.Nullary.Negation using (contraposition) open import Data.Product using (Σ; _,_; ∃; Σ-syntax; ∃-syntax) open import plfa.part1.Relations using (_<_; z<s; s<s) open import plfa.part1.Isomorphism using (_≃_; ≃-sym; ≃-trans; _≲_; extensionality) open plfa.part1.Isomorphism.≃-Reasoning

## Equality

## Imports

This chapter has no imports. Every chapter in this book, and nearly every module in the Agda standard library, imports equality. Since we define equality here, any import would create a conflict.

## Equality

#### Exercise `≤-Reasoning`

(stretch)

The proof of monotonicity from
Chapter Relations
can be written in a more readable form by using an analogue of our
notation for `≡-Reasoning`

. Define `≤-Reasoning`

analogously, and use
it to write out an alternative proof that addition is monotonic with
regard to inequality. Rewrite all of `+-monoˡ-≤`

, `+-monoʳ-≤`

, and `+-mono-≤`

.

-- Your code goes here

## Isomorphism

#### 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?

## Connectives

#### Exercise `⇔≃×`

(recommended)

Show that `A ⇔ B`

as defined earlier
is isomorphic to `(A → B) × (B → A)`

.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `⊎-comm`

(recommended)

Show sum is commutative up to isomorphism.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `⊎-assoc`

(practice)

Show sum is associative up to isomorphism.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `⊥-identityˡ`

(recommended)

Show empty is the left identity of sums up to isomorphism.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `⊥-identityʳ`

(practice)

Show empty is the right identity of sums up to isomorphism.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `⊎-weak-×`

(recommended)

Show that the following property holds:

postulate ⊎-weak-× : ∀ {A B C : Set} → (A ⊎ B) × C → A ⊎ (B × C)

This is called a *weak distributive law*. Give the corresponding
distributive law, and explain how it relates to the weak version.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `⊎×-implies-×⊎`

(practice)

Show that a disjunct of conjuncts implies a conjunct of disjuncts:

postulate ⊎×-implies-×⊎ : ∀ {A B C D : Set} → (A × B) ⊎ (C × D) → (A ⊎ C) × (B ⊎ D)

Does the converse hold? If so, prove; if not, give a counterexample.

-- Your code goes here

## Negation

#### Exercise `<-irreflexive`

(recommended)

Using negation, show that
strict inequality
is irreflexive, that is, `n < n`

holds for no `n`

.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `trichotomy`

(practice)

Show that strict inequality satisfies
trichotomy,
that is, for any naturals `m`

and `n`

exactly one of the following holds:

`m < n`

`m ≡ n`

`m > n`

Here “exactly one” means that not only one of the three must hold, but that when one holds the negation of the other two must also hold.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `⊎-dual-×`

(recommended)

Show that conjunction, disjunction, and negation are related by a version of De Morgan’s Law.

```
¬ (A ⊎ B) ≃ (¬ A) × (¬ B)
```

This result is an easy consequence of something we’ve proved previously.

-- Your code goes here

Do we also have the following?

```
¬ (A × B) ≃ (¬ A) ⊎ (¬ B)
```

If so, prove; if not, can you give a relation weaker than isomorphism that relates the two sides?

#### Exercise `Classical`

(stretch)

Consider the following principles:

- Excluded Middle:
`A ⊎ ¬ A`

, for all`A`

- Double Negation Elimination:
`¬ ¬ A → A`

, for all`A`

- Peirce’s Law:
`((A → B) → A) → A`

, for all`A`

and`B`

. - Implication as disjunction:
`(A → B) → ¬ A ⊎ B`

, for all`A`

and`B`

. - De Morgan:
`¬ (¬ A × ¬ B) → A ⊎ B`

, for all`A`

and`B`

.

Show that each of these implies all the others.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `Stable`

(stretch)

Say that a formula is *stable* if double negation elimination holds for it:

Stable : Set → Set Stable A = ¬ ¬ A → A

Show that any negated formula is stable, and that the conjunction of two stable formulas is stable.

-- Your code goes here

## Quantifiers

#### Exercise `∀-distrib-×`

(recommended)

Show that universals distribute over conjunction:

postulate ∀-distrib-× : ∀ {A : Set} {B C : A → Set} → (∀ (x : A) → B x × C x) ≃ (∀ (x : A) → B x) × (∀ (x : A) → C x)

Compare this with the result (`→-distrib-×`

) in
Chapter Connectives.

#### Exercise `⊎∀-implies-∀⊎`

(practice)

Show that a disjunction of universals implies a universal of disjunctions:

postulate ⊎∀-implies-∀⊎ : ∀ {A : Set} {B C : A → Set} → (∀ (x : A) → B x) ⊎ (∀ (x : A) → C x) → ∀ (x : A) → B x ⊎ C x

Does the converse hold? If so, prove; if not, explain why.

#### Exercise `∀-×`

(practice)

Consider the following type.

data Tri : Set where aa : Tri bb : Tri cc : Tri

Let `B`

be a type indexed by `Tri`

, that is `B : Tri → Set`

.
Show that `∀ (x : Tri) → B x`

is isomorphic to `B aa × B bb × B cc`

.

#### Exercise `∃-distrib-⊎`

(recommended)

Show that existentials distribute over disjunction:

postulate ∃-distrib-⊎ : ∀ {A : Set} {B C : A → Set} → ∃[ x ] (B x ⊎ C x) ≃ (∃[ x ] B x) ⊎ (∃[ x ] C x)

#### Exercise `∃×-implies-×∃`

(practice)

Show that an existential of conjunctions implies a conjunction of existentials:

postulate ∃×-implies-×∃ : ∀ {A : Set} {B C : A → Set} → ∃[ x ] (B x × C x) → (∃[ x ] B x) × (∃[ x ] C x)

Does the converse hold? If so, prove; if not, explain why.

#### Exercise `∃-⊎`

(practice)

Let `Tri`

and `B`

be as in Exercise `∀-×`

.
Show that `∃[ x ] B x`

is isomorphic to `B aa ⊎ B bb ⊎ B cc`

.

#### Exercise `∃-even-odd`

(practice)

How do the proofs become more difficult if we replace `m * 2`

and `1 + m * 2`

by `2 * m`

and `2 * m + 1`

? Rewrite the proofs of `∃-even`

and `∃-odd`

when
restated in this way.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `∃-|-≤`

(practice)

Show that `y ≤ z`

holds if and only if there exists a `x`

such that
`x + y ≡ z`

.

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `∃¬-implies-¬∀`

(recommended)

Show that existential of a negation implies negation of a universal:

postulate ∃¬-implies-¬∀ : ∀ {A : Set} {B : A → Set} → ∃[ x ] (¬ B x) -------------- → ¬ (∀ x → B x)

Does the converse hold? If so, prove; if not, explain why.

#### Exercise `Bin-isomorphism`

(stretch)

Recall that Exercises
Bin,
Bin-laws, and
Bin-predicates
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
Can : Bin → Set
```

And to establish the following properties:

```
from (to n) ≡ n
----------
Can (to n)
Can b
---------------
to (from b) ≡ b
```

Using the above, establish that there is an isomorphism between `ℕ`

and
`∃[ b ](Can b)`

.

-- Your code goes here

## Decidable

#### Exercise `_<?_`

(recommended)

Analogous to the function above, define a function to decide strict inequality:

postulate _<?_ : ∀ (m n : ℕ) → Dec (m < n)

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `_≡ℕ?_`

(practice)

Define a function to decide whether two naturals are equal:

postulate _≡ℕ?_ : ∀ (m n : ℕ) → Dec (m ≡ n)

-- Your code goes here

#### Exercise `erasure`

(practice)

Show that erasure relates corresponding boolean and decidable operations:

postulate ∧-× : ∀ {A B : Set} (x : Dec A) (y : Dec B) → ⌊ x ⌋ ∧ ⌊ y ⌋ ≡ ⌊ x ×-dec y ⌋ ∨-⊎ : ∀ {A B : Set} (x : Dec A) (y : Dec B) → ⌊ x ⌋ ∨ ⌊ y ⌋ ≡ ⌊ x ⊎-dec y ⌋ not-¬ : ∀ {A : Set} (x : Dec A) → not ⌊ x ⌋ ≡ ⌊ ¬? x ⌋

#### Exercise `iff-erasure`

(recommended)

Give analogues of the `_⇔_`

operation from
Chapter Isomorphism,
operation on booleans and decidables, and also show the corresponding erasure:

postulate _iff_ : Bool → Bool → Bool _⇔-dec_ : ∀ {A B : Set} → Dec A → Dec B → Dec (A ⇔ B) iff-⇔ : ∀ {A B : Set} (x : Dec A) (y : Dec B) → ⌊ x ⌋ iff ⌊ y ⌋ ≡ ⌊ x ⇔-dec y ⌋

-- Your code goes here