(***********************************************************************) (* v * The Coq Proof Assistant / The Coq Development Team *) (* B->Prop) ((x:A)(EX y:B|(R x y))) -> (EXT R':A->B->Prop | ((x:A)(EX y:B|(R x y)/\(R' x y)/\ ((y':B) (R' x y') -> y=y')))). Definition FunctionalChoice := (A:Type;B:Type;R: A->B->Prop) ((x:A)(EX y:B|(R x y))) -> (EX f:A->B | (x:A)(R x (f x))). Definition ParamDefiniteDescription := (A:Type;B:Type;R: A->B->Prop) ((x:A)(EX y:B|(R x y)/\ ((y':B)(R x y') -> y=y'))) -> (EX f:A->B | (x:A)(R x (f x))). Lemma description_rel_choice_imp_funct_choice : ParamDefiniteDescription->RelationalChoice->FunctionalChoice. Intros Descr RelCh. Red; Intros A B R H. NewDestruct (RelCh A B R H) as [R' H0]. NewDestruct (Descr A B R') as [f H1]. Intro x. Elim (H0 x); Intros y [H2 [H3 H4]]; Exists y; Split; [Exact H3 | Exact H4]. Exists f; Intro x. Elim (H0 x); Intros y [H2 [H3 H4]]. Rewrite <- (H4 (f x) (H1 x)). Exact H2. Qed. Lemma funct_choice_imp_rel_choice : FunctionalChoice->RelationalChoice. Intros FunCh. Red; Intros A B R H. NewDestruct (FunCh A B R H) as [f H0]. Exists [x,y]y=(f x). Intro x; Exists (f x); Split; [Apply H0| Split;[Reflexivity| Intros y H1; Symmetry; Exact H1]]. Qed. Lemma funct_choice_imp_description : FunctionalChoice->ParamDefiniteDescription. Intros FunCh. Red; Intros A B R H. NewDestruct (FunCh A B R) as [f H0]. (* 1 *) Intro x. Elim (H x); Intros y [H0 H1]. Exists y; Exact H0. (* 2 *) Exists f; Exact H0. Qed. Theorem FunChoice_Equiv_RelChoice_and_ParamDefinDescr : FunctionalChoice <-> RelationalChoice /\ ParamDefiniteDescription. Split. Intro H; Split; [ Exact (funct_choice_imp_rel_choice H) | Exact (funct_choice_imp_description H)]. Intros [H H0]; Exact (description_rel_choice_imp_funct_choice H0 H). Qed. (* We show that the guarded relational formulation of the axiom of Choice comes from the non guarded formulation in presence either of the independance of premises or proof-irrelevance *) Definition GuardedRelationalChoice := (A:Type;B:Type;P:A->Prop;R: A->B->Prop) ((x:A)(P x)->(EX y:B|(R x y))) -> (EXT R':A->B->Prop | ((x:A)(P x)->(EX y:B|(R x y)/\(R' x y)/\ ((y':B) (R' x y') -> y=y')))). Definition ProofIrrelevance := (A:Prop)(a1,a2:A) a1==a2. Lemma rel_choice_and_proof_irrel_imp_guarded_rel_choice : RelationalChoice -> ProofIrrelevance -> GuardedRelationalChoice. Proof. Intros rel_choice proof_irrel. Red; Intros A B P R H. NewDestruct (rel_choice ? ? [x:(sigT ? P);y:B](R (projT1 ? ? x) y)) as [R' H0]. Intros [x HPx]. NewDestruct (H x HPx) as [y HRxy]. Exists y; Exact HRxy. Pose R'':=[x:A;y:B](EXT H:(P x) | (R' (existT ? P x H) y)). Exists R''; Intros x HPx. NewDestruct (H0 (existT ? P x HPx)) as [y [HRxy [HR'xy Huniq]]]. Exists y. Split. Exact HRxy. Split. Red; Exists HPx; Exact HR'xy. Intros y' HR''xy'. Apply Huniq. Unfold R'' in HR''xy'. NewDestruct HR''xy' as [H'Px HR'xy']. Rewrite proof_irrel with a1:=HPx a2:=H'Px. Exact HR'xy'. Qed. Definition IndependenceOfPremises := (A:Type)(P:A->Prop)(Q:Prop)(Q->(EXT x|(P x)))->(EXT x|Q->(P x)). Lemma rel_choice_indep_of_premises_imp_guarded_rel_choice : RelationalChoice -> IndependenceOfPremises -> GuardedRelationalChoice. Proof. Intros RelCh IndPrem. Red; Intros A B P R H. NewDestruct (RelCh A B [x,y](P x)->(R x y)) as [R' H0]. Intro x. Apply IndPrem. Apply H. Exists R'. Intros x HPx. NewDestruct (H0 x) as [y [H1 H2]]. Exists y. Split. Apply (H1 HPx). Exact H2. Qed.