(* If [ws] is 1, then the two cases considered above, namely [k <= s] and [k >= s + ws], are exhaustive. Now, what happens when [k] is comprised between [s] and [s + ws]? The following law answers this question. This law also covers the extreme cases where [k = s] and [k = s + ws], which may seem surprising, since they are already covered by [lift_lift]. The law below states that, in this case, the two [lift] operations can be combined into a single one. Note that the exact value of [k] is irrelevant as long as it lies within this interval. *)
Class LiftLiftFuse `{Lift T} := {
lift_lift_fuse:
forall t k s wk ws,
s <= k <= s + ws ->
lift wk k (lift ws s t) = lift (wk + ws) s t
}.
(* [subst] identifies [var] and simplifies to [subst_idx]. *)
(* This law alone is probably not of great interest to the client, who needs a more general way of simplifying the application of [subst] to a constructor. We name this property because it is used by some of our lemmas. *)
Class SubstVar `{Var A, Subst A A} := {
subst_var:
forall a k x,
subst a k (var x) = subst_idx a k x
}.
(* A substitution for the variable [k] vanishes when it reaches an end-of-scope marker for the variable [k]. This is expressed by the following law. *)
Class SubstLift `{Lift T, Subst V T} := {
subst_lift:
forall v k t,
subst v k (shift k t) =
t
}.
(* [lift] and [subst] commute. *)
(* Roughly speaking, [end k in let s = v in t] is equivalent to [let s = (end k in v) in (end k in t)]. At least, that is the idea. The ``technical adjustments'' make it quite difficult to understand what is going on in detail. *)
(* Below, we propose two laws, which cover the cases [k <= s] and [s <= k]. It may seem somewhat troubling that these cases are not disjoint! When [k = s], the two right-hand sides differ in a certain manner that is described by the law [PunPun] shown further on. *)
(* We also offer a general law, which unifies these two laws, and arbitrarily gives preference to the second law in the case where [k = s]. It is not clear whether this complex general law is of any use in practice. *)
Class LiftSubst1 `{Lift V, Lift T, Subst V T} := {
lift_subst_1:
forall t k v s w,
k <= s ->
lift w k (subst v s t) =
subst (lift w k v) (w + s) (lift w k t)
}.
Class LiftSubst2 `{Lift V, Lift T, Subst V T} := {
lift_subst_2:
forall t k v s w,
s <= k ->
lift w k (subst v s t) =
subst (lift w k v) s (lift w (1 + k) t)
}.
Class LiftSubst `{Lift V, Lift T, Subst V T} := {
lift_subst:
forall t k v s w,
lift w k (subst v s t) =
subst (lift w k v) (lift w (1 + k) s) (lift w (shift s k) t)
}.
(* [subst] commutes with itself. *)
(* Roughly speaking, [let s = v in let k = w in t] is equivalent to [let k = (let s = v in w) in let s = v in t], again with ``technical adjustments''. *)
(* This law covers only the case where [k <= s]. I am not sure what can be said about the other case. Of course the law can be read from right to left, and this says something about the case where [k >= 1 + s], but only if the values [v] and [w] are of a specific form. Maybe there is nothing more to be said. *)
Class SubstSubst `{Lift V, Subst V V, Subst V T} := {
subst_subst:
forall t k v s w,
k <= s ->
subst v s (subst w k t) =
subst (subst v s w) k (subst (shift k v) (1 + s) t)
}.
(* Substituting [x] for [x] is the identity. This is known as a pun. *)
(* In a de Bruijn setting, it does not even make sense to speak of replacing a variable with itself, because in the term [subst v k t], the value [v] and the variable [k] inhabit different spaces. *)
(* Instead, we can write [let S k = k in end k in t]. This introduces [S k] as an alias for [k], then forgets about [k], so [S k] is renumbered and becomes [k] again. Or we can write [let k = k in end S k in t]. This introduces [k] as an alias for the old [k], which gets renumbered and becomes [S k], then forgets about [S k]. In each of these two cases, we introduce a new variable and forget about the old one; the apparent difference lies in how we number the new variable, but this makes no deep difference. We give the variants of the law for puns, plus a law that helps recognize these two variants as equal. *)
Class Pun1 `{Var V, Lift T, Subst V T} := {
pun_1:
forall t k,
subst (var k) (S k) (shift k t) = t
}.
Class Pun2 `{Var V, Lift T, Subst V T} := {
pun_2:
forall t k,
subst (var k) k (shift (S k) t) = t
}.
Class PunPun `{Var V, Lift T, Subst V T} := {
pun_pun:
forall v w k t,
subst v (w + k) (lift w k t) =
subst v k (lift w (1 + k) t)
}.
(* [rotate 1] exchanges the variables [0] and [1], so it is own inverse. *)
Class Rotate1SelfInverse `{Var V, Lift T, Subst V T} := {
rotate1_self_inverse:
forall t,
rotate 1 (rotate 1 t) = t
}.
(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)
(* A few consequences of the properties that the user proves about [traverse]. *)
(* We could present these properties in the form of classes, as opposed to lemmas. This would be perhaps slightly more convenient but also more confusing. It is seems preferable to work directly with the basic classes that the user knows about. *)
(* [traverse] is compatible with extensional equality. *)

(* Specifications: *)
Lemma traverse_extensional:
forall `{Traverse V T},
TraverseRelative ->
forall f g,
(forall l x, f l x = g l x) ->
forall t l,
traverse f l t = traverse g l t.