With respect to the relation Rle (<=), I can rewrite inside Rplus (+) and Rminus (-), since both positions of both binary operators have fixed variance:
Require Import Setoid Relation_Definitions Reals.
Open Scope R.
Add Parametric Relation : R Rle
reflexivity proved by Rle_refl
transitivity proved by Rle_trans
as Rle_setoid_relation.
Add Parametric Morphism : Rplus with
signature Rle ++> Rle ++> Rle as Rplus_Rle_mor.
intros ; apply Rplus_le_compat ; assumption.
Qed.
Add Parametric Morphism : Rminus with
signature Rle ++> Rle --> Rle as Rminus_Rle_mor.
intros ; unfold Rminus ;
apply Rplus_le_compat;
[assumption | apply Ropp_le_contravar ; assumption].
Qed.
Goal forall (x1 x2 y1 y2 : R),
x1 <= x2 -> y1 <= y2 ->
x1 - y2 <= x2 - y1.
Proof.
intros x1 x2 y1 y2 x1_le_x2 y1_le_y2;
rewrite x1_le_x2; rewrite y1_le_y2;
reflexivity.
Qed.
Unfortunately, Rmult (*) does not have this property: the variance depends on whether the other multiplicand is positive or negative. Is it possible to define a conditional morphism, so that Coq performs the rewriting step and simply adds the non-negativity of the multiplicand as a proof obligation? Thanks.
I think that defining what you want should be possible but likely not trivial.
However you may be interested in a different approach using the algebraic hierarchy of math-comp, see:
Lemma ler_pmul2l x : 0 < x → {mono *%R x : x y / x ≤ y}.
and related lemmas ( http://math-comp.github.io/math-comp/htmldoc/mathcomp.algebra.ssrnum.html ). In ssreflect <=
is a boolean relation so vanilla rewriting is possible as a <= b
really means a <= b = true
.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With