# Library prosa.util.minmax

From mathcomp Require Import ssreflect ssrbool eqtype ssrnat seq fintype bigop.
Require Export prosa.util.notation prosa.util.nat prosa.util.list prosa.util.setoid.

# Additional Lemmas about \max.

Given a function F, a predicate P, and a sequence xs, we show that F x ≤ max { F i | ∀ i ∈ xs, P i} for any x in xs.
Lemma leq_bigmax_cond_seq :
∀ {X : eqType} (F : X → nat) (P : pred X) (xs : seq X) (x : X),
x \in xs → P x → F x ≤ \max_(i <- xs | P i) F i.
Proof. by move⇒ X F P xs x IN Px; rewrite (big_rem x) //= Px leq_maxl. Qed.
Similarly, we show that for a constant n to be bounded by max { F i | ∀ i ∈ xs, P i}, it is sufficient to find an element x ∈ xs such that P x and n ≤ F x.
Corollary leq_bigmax_sup :
∀ {X : eqType} (P : pred X) (F : X → nat) (xs : seq X) (n : nat),
(∃ x, x \in xs ∧ P x ∧ n ≤ F x) →
n ≤ \max_(x <- xs | P x) F x.
Proof.
move⇒ X P F xs n [x [IN [Px LE]]].
apply: leq_trans; first by exact: LE.
by apply leq_bigmax_cond_seq.
Qed.
Next, we show that the fact max { F i | ∀ i ∈ xs, P i} ≤ m for some m is equivalent to the fact that ∀ x ∈ xs, P x → F x ≤ m.
Lemma bigmax_leq_seqP :
∀ {X : eqType} (F : X → nat) (P : pred X) (xs : seq X) (m : nat),
reflect (∀ x, x \in xs → P x → F x ≤ m)
(\max_(x <- xs | P x) F x ≤ m).
Proof.
intros ×.
apply: (iffP idP) ⇒ leFm ⇒ [i IINR Pi|].
- by apply: leq_trans leFm; apply leq_bigmax_cond_seq.
- rewrite big_seq_cond; elim/big_ind: _ ⇒ // m1 m2.
+ by intros; rewrite geq_max; apply/andP; split.
+ by move: m2 ⇒ /andP [M1IN Pm1]; apply: leFm.
Qed.
Given two functions F1 and F2, a predicate P, and sequence xs, we show that if F1 x ≤ F2 x for any x \in xs such that P x, then max of {F1 x | ∀ x ∈ xs, P x} is bounded by the max of {F2 x | ∀ x ∈ xs, P x}.
Lemma leq_big_max :
∀ {X : eqType} (F1 F2 : X → nat) (P : pred X) (xs : seq X),
(∀ x, x \in xs → P x → F1 x ≤ F2 x) →
\max_(x <- xs | P x) F1 x ≤ \max_(x <- xs | P x) F2 x.
Proof.
move⇒ X F1 F2 P xs ALL; apply /bigmax_leq_seqP ⇒ x IN Px.
specialize (ALL x); feed_n 2 ALL; try done.
rewrite (big_rem x) //=; rewrite Px.
by apply leq_trans with (F2 x); [ | rewrite leq_maxl].
Qed.
We show that for a positive n, max of {0, …, n-1} is smaller than n.
Lemma bigmax_ord_ltn_identity :
∀ (n : nat),
n > 0 →
\max_(i < n) i < n.
Proof.
intros [ | n] POS; first by rewrite ltn0 in POS.
clear POS.
elim: n ⇒ [|n IHn]; first by rewrite big_ord_recr /= big_ord0 maxn0.
by rewrite big_ord_recr /= /maxn IHn.
Qed.
We state the next lemma in terms of ordinals. Given a natural number n, a predicate P, and an ordinal i0 ∈ {0, …, n-1} satisfying P, we show that max {i | P i} < n. Note that the element satisfying P is needed to prove that {i | P i} is not empty.
Lemma bigmax_ltn_ord :
∀ (n : nat) (P : pred nat) (i0 : 'I_n),
P i0 →
\max_(i < n | P i) i < n.
Proof.
intros n P i0 Pi.
destruct n as [|n]; first by destruct i0 as [i0 P0]; move: (P0) ⇒ P0'; rewrite ltn0 in P0'.
rewrite big_mkcond.
apply leq_ltn_trans with (n := \max_(i < n.+1) i).
- apply/bigmax_leqP ⇒ i _.
destruct (P i); last by done.
by apply leq_bigmax_cond.
- by apply bigmax_ord_ltn_identity.
Qed.
Next, we show that, given a natural number n, a predicate P, and an ordinal i0 ∈ {0, …, n-1} satisfying P, max {i | P i} < n also satisfies P.
Lemma bigmax_pred :
∀ (n : nat) (P : pred nat) (i0 : 'I_n),
P i0 →
P (\max_(i < n | P i) i).
Proof.
intros n P i0 Pi0.
elim: n i0 Pi0 ⇒ [|n IHn] i0 Pi0.
{ by destruct i0 as [i0 P0]; move: (P0) ⇒ P1; rewrite ltn0 in P1. }
{ rewrite big_mkcond big_ord_recr /=.
destruct (P n) eqn:Pn.
{ destruct n as [|n]; first by rewrite big_ord0 maxn0.
unfold maxn at 1.
destruct (\max_(i < n.+1) (match P (@nat_of_ord (S n) i) return nat with
| true ⇒ @nat_of_ord (S n) i
| false ⇒ O
end) < n.+1) eqn:Pi; first by rewrite Pi.
exfalso.
apply negbT in Pi; move: Pi ⇒ /negP BUG; apply: BUG.
apply leq_ltn_trans with (n := \max_(i < n.+1) i).
{ apply/bigmax_leqP; rewrite //= ⇒ i _.
by destruct (P i); first apply leq_bigmax_cond.
}
{ by apply bigmax_ord_ltn_identity. }
}
{ rewrite maxn0 -big_mkcond /=.
have LT: i0 < n; last by rewrite (IHn (Ordinal LT)).
rewrite ltn_neqAle; apply/andP; split;
last by rewrite -ltnS; apply ltn_ord.
apply/negP ⇒ /eqP BUG.
by rewrite -BUG Pi0 in Pn.
}
}
Qed.
Furthermore, we observe that, if there is any element that satisfies the predicate, then there exists a witness for the computed maximum.
Lemma bigmax_witness {T : eqType} :
∀ {xs : seq T} {P} F,
has P xs →
∃ x, x \in xs ∧ P x ∧ (F x = \max_(x <- xs | P x) F x).
Proof.
move⇒ xs P F.
elim: xs ⇒ // a xs IH HAS.
case: (boolP (P a)); last first.
{ move⇒ /negPf NOT.
move: HAS; rewrite /has NOT //= -/(has P xs) ⇒ HAS.
move: (IH HAS) ⇒ [x [IN [Px Fx]]].
∃ x; repeat split ⇒ //;
first by rewrite in_cons; apply /orP; right.
by rewrite big_cons ifF. }
{ move⇒ Pa.
case: (boolP (has P xs)) ⇒ HAS'; last first.
{ ∃ a; repeat split ⇒ //; first by apply: mem_head.
by rewrite big_cons ifT // big_hasC. }
{ move: (IH HAS') ⇒ [x [IN [Px MAX]]].
case: (leqP (\max_(x <- xs | P x) F x) (F a)).
{ move⇒ LEQ. ∃ a.
repeat split ⇒ //; first by rewrite mem_head.
rewrite big_cons ifT //= [maxn (_) (_)]/maxn ifF //.
by lia. }
{ move⇒ LT. ∃ x.
repeat split ⇒ //; first by rewrite in_cons; apply /orP; right.
by rewrite big_cons ifT //= [maxn (_) (_)]/maxn ifT. } } }
Qed.
Additionally, we observe that, if two predicates yield different maxima, then there must exist a witness that satisfies only one of the predicates.
Lemma bigmax_witness_diff {T : eqType} :
∀ {xs : seq T} {P1 P2 F},
\max_(x <- xs | P1 x) F x < \max_(x <- xs | P2 x) F x →
∃ x, x \in xs ∧ ~~ P1 x ∧ P2 x.
Proof.
move⇒ xs P1 P2 F LT.
case: (boolP (has P1 xs)) ⇒ HP1;
case: (boolP (has P2 xs)) ⇒ HP2.
{ move: (bigmax_witness F HP2) ⇒ [x2 [IN2 [Px2 MAX2]]].
∃ x2; repeat split ⇒ //.
apply: contraT ⇒ /negPn Px1; exfalso.
have BOUNDED: F x2 ≤ \max_(x <- xs | P1 x) F x by apply: leq_bigmax_cond_seq.
by lia. }
{ by exfalso; move: LT; rewrite (big_hasC _ _ _ HP2). }
{ move: (bigmax_witness F HP2) ⇒ [x2 [IN2 [Px2 MAX2]]].
∃ x2; repeat split ⇒ //.
move: HP1 ⇒ /hasPn HP1.
by move: (HP1 x2 IN2). }
{ by exfalso; move: LT; rewrite !big_hasC. }
Qed.
Conversely, we observe that if one predicates implies another, then the corresponding maxima are related.
Corollary bigmax_subset {T : eqType} :
∀ {xs : seq T} {P1 P2 : pred T} {F},
(∀ x, x \in xs → P1 x → P2 x) →
\max_(x <- xs | P1 x) F x ≤ \max_(x <- xs | P2 x) F x.
Proof.
move⇒ xs P1 P2 F IMPL.
apply: contraT; rewrite -ltnNge ⇒ LT.
exfalso.
move: (bigmax_witness_diff LT) ⇒ [x [IN [/negP Px2 Px1]]].
by apply Px2, IMPL.
Qed.