Theory PMLinHOL_shallow_tests

subsection‹Tests with the maximal shallow embedding›

theory PMLinHOL_shallow_tests 
   imports PMLinHOL_shallow
begin

―‹Hilbert calculus: proving that the schematic axioms and rules implied by the embedding›
lemma H1: "⊨s φ ⊃s (ψ ⊃s φ)" by auto
lemma H2: "⊨s (φ ⊃s (ψ ⊃s γ)) ⊃s ((φ ⊃s ψ) ⊃s (φ ⊃s γ)) " by auto
lemma H3: "⊨s (¬sφ⊃s ¬sψ) ⊃s (ψ ⊃s φ)" by auto
lemma MP: "⊨s φ ⟹ ⊨s (φ⊃s ψ) ⟹ ⊨s ψ" by auto

―‹Reasoning with the Hilbert calculus: interactive and fully automated›
lemma HCderived1: "⊨s (φ ⊃s φ)" ―‹sledgehammer(HC1 HC2 HC3 MP) returns: by (metis HC1 HC2 MP)›
  proof -
    have 1: "⊨s φ ⊃s ((ψ ⊃s φ) ⊃s φ)" using H1 by auto 
    have 2: "⊨s (φ ⊃s ((ψ ⊃s φ) ⊃s φ)) ⊃s ((φ ⊃s (ψ ⊃s φ)) ⊃s (φ ⊃s φ))" using H2 by auto 
    have 3: "⊨s (φ ⊃s (ψ ⊃s φ)) ⊃s (φ ⊃s φ)" using 1 2 MP by meson
    have 4: "⊨s φ ⊃s (ψ⊃s φ)" using H1 by auto 
    thus ?thesis using 3 4 MP by meson 
  qed

lemma HCderived2: "⊨s φ ⊃s (¬sφ⊃s ψ) " by (metis H1 H2 H3 MP) 
lemma HCderived3: "⊨s (¬sφ⊃s φ) ⊃s φ" by (metis H1 H2 H3 MP) 
lemma HCderived4: "⊨s (φ ⊃s ψ) ⊃s (¬sψ ⊃s ¬sφ) " by auto 

―‹Modal logic: the schematic necessitation rule and distribution axiom are implied›
lemma Nec: "⊨s φ ⟹ ⊨s □sφ" by auto
lemma Dist:"⊨s □s(φ ⊃s ψ) ⊃s (□sφ ⊃s □sψ) " by auto

―‹Correspondence theory: correct statements› 
lemma cM:"reflexive R ⟷ (∀φ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s □sφ ⊃s φ)" ―‹sledgehammer: Proof found› oops (**)
lemma cBa: "symmetric R ⟶ (∀φ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s φ ⊃s □s(◇sφ))" by auto 
(**)lemma cBb: "symmetric R ⟵ (∀φ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s φ ⊃s □s(◇sφ))" ―‹sledgehammer: No proof› oops
lemma c4a: "transitive R ⟶ (∀φ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s □sφ ⊃s □s(□sφ))" by (smt (z3) DefS)
(**)lemma c4b: "transitive R ⟵ (∀φ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s □sφ ⊃s □s(□sφ))" ―‹sledgehammer: No proof› oops

―‹Correspondence theory: incorrect statements› 
lemma "reflexive R ⟶ (∀φ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s □sφ ⊃s □s(□sφ))" nitpick[card 𝗐=3] oops ―‹nitpick: Counterexample›

―‹Simple, incorrect validity statements›
lemma "⊨s φ ⊃s □sφ" nitpick[card 𝗐=2, card 𝒮= 1] oops ―‹nitpick: Counterexample: modal collapse not implied›
(**)lemma "⊨s □s( □sφ ⊃s□sψ) ∨s □s( □sψ ⊃s□sφ)" oops ―‹‹nitpick[card 𝗐=3]› returns: unknown› 
lemma "⊨s (◇s(□s φ)) ⊃s□s(◇s φ)" nitpick[card 𝗐=2] oops ―‹nitpick: Counterexample› 

―‹Implied axiom schemata in S5›
lemma KB: "symmetric R ⟶ (∀φ ψ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s (◇s(□sφ)) ⊃s□s(◇sφ))" by auto
lemma K4B: "symmetric R ∧ transitive R ⟶ (∀φ ψ W V. ∀w:W. ⟨W,R,V⟩,w ⊨s □s( □sφ ⊃s□sψ) ∨s □s( □sψ ⊃s□sφ))" by (smt (z3) DefS)
end