section ‹Proof of Sturm's Theorem› (* Author: Manuel Eberl <manuel@pruvisto.org> *) theory Sturm_Theorem imports "HOL-Computational_Algebra.Polynomial" "Lib/Sturm_Library" "HOL-Computational_Algebra.Field_as_Ring" begin subsection ‹Sign changes of polynomial sequences› text ‹ For a given sequence of polynomials, this function computes the number of sign changes of the sequence of polynomials evaluated at a given position $x$. A sign change is a change from a negative value to a positive one or vice versa; zeros in the sequence are ignored. › definition sign_changes where "sign_changes ps (x::real) = length (remdups_adj (filter (λx. x ≠ 0) (map (λp. sgn (poly p x)) ps))) - 1" text ‹ The number of sign changes of a sequence distributes over a list in the sense that the number of sign changes of a sequence $p_1, \ldots, p_i, \ldots, p_n$ at $x$ is the same as the sum of the sign changes of the sequence $p_1, \ldots, p_i$ and $p_i, \ldots, p_n$ as long as $p_i(x)\neq 0$. › lemma sign_changes_distrib: "poly p x ≠ 0 ⟹ sign_changes (ps⇩_{1}@ [p] @ ps⇩_{2}) x = sign_changes (ps⇩_{1}@ [p]) x + sign_changes ([p] @ ps⇩_{2}) x" by (simp add: sign_changes_def sgn_zero_iff, subst remdups_adj_append, simp) text ‹ The following two congruences state that the number of sign changes is the same if all the involved signs are the same. › lemma sign_changes_cong: assumes "length ps = length ps'" assumes "∀i < length ps. sgn (poly (ps!i) x) = sgn (poly (ps'!i) y)" shows "sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps' y" proof- from assms(2) have A: "map (λp. sgn (poly p x)) ps = map (λp. sgn (poly p y)) ps'" proof (induction rule: list_induct2[OF assms(1)]) case 1 then show ?case by simp next case (2 p ps p' ps') from 2(3) have "∀i<length ps. sgn (poly (ps ! i) x) = sgn (poly (ps' ! i) y)" by auto from 2(2)[OF this] 2(3) show ?case by auto qed show ?thesis unfolding sign_changes_def by (simp add: A) qed lemma sign_changes_cong': assumes "∀p ∈ set ps. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p y)" shows "sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps y" using assms by (intro sign_changes_cong, simp_all) text ‹ For a sequence of polynomials of length 3, if the first and the third polynomial have opposite and nonzero sign at some $x$, the number of sign changes is always 1, irrespective of the sign of the second polynomial. › lemma sign_changes_sturm_triple: assumes "poly p x ≠ 0" and "sgn (poly r x) = - sgn (poly p x)" shows "sign_changes [p,q,r] x = 1" unfolding sign_changes_def by (insert assms, auto simp: sgn_real_def) text ‹ Finally, we define two additional functions that count the sign changes ``at infinity''. › definition sign_changes_inf where "sign_changes_inf ps = length (remdups_adj (filter (λx. x ≠ 0) (map poly_inf ps))) - 1" definition sign_changes_neg_inf where "sign_changes_neg_inf ps = length (remdups_adj (filter (λx. x ≠ 0) (map poly_neg_inf ps))) - 1" subsection ‹Definition of Sturm sequences locale› text ‹ We first define the notion of a ``Quasi-Sturm sequence'', which is a weakening of a Sturm sequence that captures the properties that are fulfilled by a nonempty suffix of a Sturm sequence: \begin{itemize} \item The sequence is nonempty. \item The last polynomial does not change its sign. \item If the middle one of three adjacent polynomials has a root at $x$, the other two have opposite and nonzero signs at $x$. \end{itemize} › locale quasi_sturm_seq = fixes ps :: "(real poly) list" assumes last_ps_sgn_const[simp]: "⋀x y. sgn (poly (last ps) x) = sgn (poly (last ps) y)" assumes ps_not_Nil[simp]: "ps ≠ []" assumes signs: "⋀i x. ⟦i < length ps - 2; poly (ps ! (i+1)) x = 0⟧ ⟹ (poly (ps ! (i+2)) x) * (poly (ps ! i) x) < 0" text ‹ Now we define a Sturm sequence $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ of a polynomial $p$ in the following way: \begin{itemize} \item The sequence contains at least two elements. \item $p$ is the first polynomial, i.\,e. $p_1 = p$. \item At any root $x$ of $p$, $p_2$ and $p$ have opposite sign left of $x$ and the same sign right of $x$ in some neighbourhood around $x$. \item The first two polynomials in the sequence have no common roots. \item If the middle one of three adjacent polynomials has a root at $x$, the other two have opposite and nonzero signs at $x$. \end{itemize} › locale sturm_seq = quasi_sturm_seq + fixes p :: "real poly" assumes hd_ps_p[simp]: "hd ps = p" assumes length_ps_ge_2[simp]: "length ps ≥ 2" assumes deriv: "⋀x⇩_{0}. poly p x⇩_{0}= 0 ⟹ eventually (λx. sgn (poly (p * ps!1) x) = (if x > x⇩_{0}then 1 else -1)) (at x⇩_{0})" assumes p_squarefree: "⋀x. ¬(poly p x = 0 ∧ poly (ps!1) x = 0)" begin text ‹ Any Sturm sequence is obviously a Quasi-Sturm sequence. › lemma quasi_sturm_seq: "quasi_sturm_seq ps" .. (*<*) lemma ps_first_two: obtains q ps' where "ps = p # q # ps'" using hd_ps_p length_ps_ge_2 by (cases ps, simp, clarsimp, rename_tac ps', case_tac ps', auto) lemma ps_first: "ps ! 0 = p" by (rule ps_first_two, simp) lemma [simp]: "p ∈ set ps" using hd_in_set[OF ps_not_Nil] by simp (*>*) end (*<*) lemma [simp]: "¬quasi_sturm_seq []" by (simp add: quasi_sturm_seq_def) (*>*) text ‹ Any suffix of a Quasi-Sturm sequence is again a Quasi-Sturm sequence. › lemma quasi_sturm_seq_Cons: assumes "quasi_sturm_seq (p#ps)" and "ps ≠ []" shows "quasi_sturm_seq ps" proof (unfold_locales) show "ps ≠ []" by fact next from assms(1) interpret quasi_sturm_seq "p#ps" . fix x y from last_ps_sgn_const and ‹ps ≠ []› show "sgn (poly (last ps) x) = sgn (poly (last ps) y)" by simp_all next from assms(1) interpret quasi_sturm_seq "p#ps" . fix i x assume "i < length ps - 2" and "poly (ps ! (i+1)) x = 0" with signs[of "i+1"] show "poly (ps ! (i+2)) x * poly (ps ! i) x < 0" by simp qed subsection ‹Auxiliary lemmas about roots and sign changes› lemma sturm_adjacent_root_aux: assumes "i < length (ps :: real poly list) - 1" assumes "poly (ps ! i) x = 0" and "poly (ps ! (i + 1)) x = 0" assumes "⋀i x. ⟦i < length ps - 2; poly (ps ! (i+1)) x = 0⟧ ⟹ sgn (poly (ps ! (i+2)) x) = - sgn (poly (ps ! i) x)" shows "∀j≤i+1. poly (ps ! j) x = 0" using assms proof (induction i) case 0 thus ?case by (clarsimp, rename_tac j, case_tac j, simp_all) next case (Suc i) from Suc.prems(1,2) have "sgn (poly (ps ! (i + 2)) x) = - sgn (poly (ps ! i) x)" by (intro assms(4)) simp_all with Suc.prems(3) have "poly (ps ! i) x = 0" by (simp add: sgn_zero_iff) with Suc.prems have "∀j≤i+1. poly (ps ! j) x = 0" by (intro Suc.IH, simp_all) with Suc.prems(3) show ?case by (clarsimp, rename_tac j, case_tac "j = Suc (Suc i)", simp_all) qed text ‹ This function splits the sign list of a Sturm sequence at a position @{term x} that is not a root of @{term p} into a list of sublists such that the number of sign changes within every sublist is constant in the neighbourhood of @{term x}, thus proving that the total number is also constant. › fun split_sign_changes where "split_sign_changes [p] (x :: real) = [[p]]" | "split_sign_changes [p,q] x = [[p,q]]" | "split_sign_changes (p#q#r#ps) x = (if poly p x ≠ 0 ∧ poly q x = 0 then [p,q,r] # split_sign_changes (r#ps) x else [p,q] # split_sign_changes (q#r#ps) x)" lemma (in quasi_sturm_seq) split_sign_changes_subset[dest]: "ps' ∈ set (split_sign_changes ps x) ⟹ set ps' ⊆ set ps" apply (insert ps_not_Nil) apply (induction ps x rule: split_sign_changes.induct) apply (simp, simp, rename_tac p q r ps x, case_tac "poly p x ≠ 0 ∧ poly q x = 0", auto) done text ‹ A custom induction rule for @{term split_sign_changes} that uses the fact that all the intermediate parameters in calls of @{term split_sign_changes} are quasi-Sturm sequences. › lemma (in quasi_sturm_seq) split_sign_changes_induct: "⟦⋀p x. P [p] x; ⋀p q x. quasi_sturm_seq [p,q] ⟹ P [p,q] x; ⋀p q r ps x. quasi_sturm_seq (p#q#r#ps) ⟹ ⟦poly p x ≠ 0 ⟹ poly q x = 0 ⟹ P (r#ps) x; poly q x ≠ 0 ⟹ P (q#r#ps) x; poly p x = 0 ⟹ P (q#r#ps) x⟧ ⟹ P (p#q#r#ps) x⟧ ⟹ P ps x" proof goal_cases case prems: 1 have "quasi_sturm_seq ps" .. with prems show ?thesis proof (induction ps x rule: split_sign_changes.induct) case (3 p q r ps x) show ?case proof (rule 3(5)[OF 3(6)]) assume A: "poly p x ≠ 0" "poly q x = 0" from 3(6) have "quasi_sturm_seq (r#ps)" by (force dest: quasi_sturm_seq_Cons) with 3 A show "P (r # ps) x" by blast next assume A: "poly q x ≠ 0" from 3(6) have "quasi_sturm_seq (q#r#ps)" by (force dest: quasi_sturm_seq_Cons) with 3 A show "P (q # r # ps) x" by blast next assume A: "poly p x = 0" from 3(6) have "quasi_sturm_seq (q#r#ps)" by (force dest: quasi_sturm_seq_Cons) with 3 A show "P (q # r # ps) x" by blast qed qed simp_all qed text ‹ The total number of sign changes in the split list is the same as the number of sign changes in the original list. › lemma (in quasi_sturm_seq) split_sign_changes_correct: assumes "poly (hd ps) x⇩_{0}≠ 0" defines "sign_changes' ≡ λps x. ∑ps'←split_sign_changes ps x. sign_changes ps' x" shows "sign_changes' ps x⇩_{0}= sign_changes ps x⇩_{0}" using assms(1) proof (induction x⇩_{0}rule: split_sign_changes_induct) case (3 p q r ps x⇩_{0}) hence "poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by simp note IH = 3(2,3,4) show ?case proof (cases "poly q x⇩_{0}= 0") case True from 3 interpret quasi_sturm_seq "p#q#r#ps" by simp from signs[of 0] and True have sgn_r_x0: "poly r x⇩_{0}* poly p x⇩_{0}< 0" by simp with 3 have "poly r x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by force from sign_changes_distrib[OF this, of "[p,q]" ps] have "sign_changes (p#q#r#ps) x⇩_{0}= sign_changes ([p, q, r]) x⇩_{0}+ sign_changes (r # ps) x⇩_{0}" by simp also have "sign_changes (r#ps) x⇩_{0}= sign_changes' (r#ps) x⇩_{0}" using ‹poly q x⇩_{0}= 0› ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0› 3(5)‹poly r x⇩_{0}≠ 0› by (intro IH(1)[symmetric], simp_all) finally show ?thesis unfolding sign_changes'_def using True ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0› by simp next case False from sign_changes_distrib[OF this, of "[p]" "r#ps"] have "sign_changes (p#q#r#ps) x⇩_{0}= sign_changes ([p,q]) x⇩_{0}+ sign_changes (q#r#ps) x⇩_{0}" by simp also have "sign_changes (q#r#ps) x⇩_{0}= sign_changes' (q#r#ps) x⇩_{0}" using ‹poly q x⇩_{0}≠ 0› ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0› 3(5) by (intro IH(2)[symmetric], simp_all) finally show ?thesis unfolding sign_changes'_def using False by simp qed qed (simp_all add: sign_changes_def sign_changes'_def) text ‹ We now prove that if $p(x)\neq 0$, the number of sign changes of a Sturm sequence of $p$ at $x$ is constant in a neighbourhood of $x$. › lemma (in quasi_sturm_seq) split_sign_changes_correct_nbh: assumes "poly (hd ps) x⇩_{0}≠ 0" defines "sign_changes' ≡ λx⇩_{0}ps x. ∑ps'←split_sign_changes ps x⇩_{0}. sign_changes ps' x" shows "eventually (λx. sign_changes' x⇩_{0}ps x = sign_changes ps x) (at x⇩_{0})" proof (rule eventually_mono) show "eventually (λx. ∀p∈{p ∈ set ps. poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0}. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})) (at x⇩_{0})" by (rule eventually_ball_finite, auto intro: poly_neighbourhood_same_sign) next fix x show "(∀p∈{p ∈ set ps. poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0}. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})) ⟹ sign_changes' x⇩_{0}ps x = sign_changes ps x" proof - fix x assume nbh: "∀p∈{p ∈ set ps. poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0}. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})" thus "sign_changes' x⇩_{0}ps x = sign_changes ps x" using assms(1) proof (induction x⇩_{0}rule: split_sign_changes_induct) case (3 p q r ps x⇩_{0}) hence "poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by simp note IH = 3(2,3,4) show ?case proof (cases "poly q x⇩_{0}= 0") case True from 3 interpret quasi_sturm_seq "p#q#r#ps" by simp from signs[of 0] and True have sgn_r_x0: "poly r x⇩_{0}* poly p x⇩_{0}< 0" by simp with 3 have "poly r x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by force with nbh 3(5) have "poly r x ≠ 0" by (auto simp: sgn_zero_iff) from sign_changes_distrib[OF this, of "[p,q]" ps] have "sign_changes (p#q#r#ps) x = sign_changes ([p, q, r]) x + sign_changes (r # ps) x" by simp also have "sign_changes (r#ps) x = sign_changes' x⇩_{0}(r#ps) x" using ‹poly q x⇩_{0}= 0› nbh ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0› 3(5)‹poly r x⇩_{0}≠ 0› by (intro IH(1)[symmetric], simp_all) finally show ?thesis unfolding sign_changes'_def using True ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0›by simp next case False with nbh 3(5) have "poly q x ≠ 0" by (auto simp: sgn_zero_iff) from sign_changes_distrib[OF this, of "[p]" "r#ps"] have "sign_changes (p#q#r#ps) x = sign_changes ([p,q]) x + sign_changes (q#r#ps) x" by simp also have "sign_changes (q#r#ps) x = sign_changes' x⇩_{0}(q#r#ps) x" using ‹poly q x⇩_{0}≠ 0› nbh ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0› 3(5) by (intro IH(2)[symmetric], simp_all) finally show ?thesis unfolding sign_changes'_def using False by simp qed qed (simp_all add: sign_changes_def sign_changes'_def) qed qed lemma (in quasi_sturm_seq) hd_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const_aux: assumes "poly (hd ps) x⇩_{0}≠ 0" and "ps' ∈ set (split_sign_changes ps x⇩_{0})" shows "eventually (λx. sign_changes ps' x = sign_changes ps' x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" using assms proof (induction x⇩_{0}rule: split_sign_changes_induct) case (1 p x) thus ?case by (simp add: sign_changes_def) next case (2 p q x⇩_{0}) hence [simp]: "ps' = [p,q]" by simp from 2 have "poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by simp from 2(1) interpret quasi_sturm_seq "[p,q]" . from poly_neighbourhood_same_sign[OF ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0›] have "eventually (λx. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})) (at x⇩_{0})" . moreover from last_ps_sgn_const have sgn_q: "⋀x. sgn (poly q x) = sgn (poly q x⇩_{0})" by simp ultimately have A: "eventually (λx. ∀p∈set[p,q]. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})) (at x⇩_{0})" by simp thus ?case by (force intro: eventually_mono[OF A] sign_changes_cong') next case (3 p q r ps'' x⇩_{0}) hence p_not_0: "poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by simp note sturm = 3(1) note IH = 3(2,3) note ps''_props = 3(6) show ?case proof (cases "poly q x⇩_{0}= 0") case True note q_0 = this from sturm interpret quasi_sturm_seq "p#q#r#ps''" . from signs[of 0] and q_0 have signs': "poly r x⇩_{0}* poly p x⇩_{0}< 0" by simp with p_not_0 have r_not_0: "poly r x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by force show ?thesis proof (cases "ps' ∈ set (split_sign_changes (r # ps'') x⇩_{0})") case True show ?thesis by (rule IH(1), fact, fact, simp add: r_not_0, fact) next case False with ps''_props p_not_0 q_0 have ps'_props: "ps' = [p,q,r]" by simp from signs[of 0] and q_0 have sgn_r: "poly r x⇩_{0}* poly p x⇩_{0}< 0" by simp from p_not_0 sgn_r have A: "eventually (λx. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0}) ∧ sgn (poly r x) = sgn (poly r x⇩_{0})) (at x⇩_{0})" by (intro eventually_conj poly_neighbourhood_same_sign, simp_all add: r_not_0) show ?thesis proof (rule eventually_mono[OF A], clarify, subst ps'_props, subst sign_changes_sturm_triple) fix x assume A: "sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})" and B: "sgn (poly r x) = sgn (poly r x⇩_{0})" have prod_neg: "⋀a (b::real). ⟦a>0; b>0; a*b<0⟧ ⟹ False" "⋀a (b::real). ⟦a<0; b<0; a*b<0⟧ ⟹ False" by (drule mult_pos_pos, simp, simp, drule mult_neg_neg, simp, simp) from A and ‹poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0› show "poly p x ≠ 0" by (force simp: sgn_zero_iff) with sgn_r p_not_0 r_not_0 A B have "poly r x * poly p x < 0" "poly r x ≠ 0" by (metis sgn_less sgn_mult, metis sgn_0_0) with sgn_r show sgn_r': "sgn (poly r x) = - sgn (poly p x)" apply (simp add: sgn_real_def not_le not_less split: if_split_asm, intro conjI impI) using prod_neg[of "poly r x" "poly p x"] apply force+ done show "1 = sign_changes ps' x⇩_{0}" by (subst ps'_props, subst sign_changes_sturm_triple, fact, metis A B sgn_r', simp) qed qed next case False note q_not_0 = this show ?thesis proof (cases "ps' ∈ set (split_sign_changes (q # r # ps'') x⇩_{0})") case True show ?thesis by (rule IH(2), fact, simp add: q_not_0, fact) next case False with ps''_props and q_not_0 have "ps' = [p, q]" by simp hence [simp]: "∀p∈set ps'. poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0" using q_not_0 p_not_0 by simp show ?thesis proof (rule eventually_mono) fix x assume "∀p∈set ps'. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})" thus "sign_changes ps' x = sign_changes ps' x⇩_{0}" by (rule sign_changes_cong') next show "eventually (λx. ∀p∈set ps'. sgn (poly p x) = sgn (poly p x⇩_{0})) (at x⇩_{0})" by (force intro: eventually_ball_finite poly_neighbourhood_same_sign) qed qed qed qed lemma (in quasi_sturm_seq) hd_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const: assumes "poly (hd ps) x⇩_{0}≠ 0" shows "eventually (λx. sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" proof- let ?pss = "split_sign_changes ps x⇩_{0}" let ?f = "λpss x. ∑ps'←pss. sign_changes ps' x" { fix pss assume "⋀ps'. ps'∈set pss ⟹ eventually (λx. sign_changes ps' x = sign_changes ps' x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" hence "eventually (λx. ?f pss x = ?f pss x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" proof (induction pss) case (Cons ps' pss) then show ?case apply (rule eventually_mono[OF eventually_conj]) apply (auto simp add: Cons.prems) done qed simp } note A = this[of ?pss] have B: "eventually (λx. ?f ?pss x = ?f ?pss x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" by (rule A, rule hd_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const_aux[OF assms], simp) note C = split_sign_changes_correct_nbh[OF assms] note D = split_sign_changes_correct[OF assms] note E = eventually_conj[OF B C] show ?thesis by (rule eventually_mono[OF E], auto simp: D) qed (*<*) hide_fact quasi_sturm_seq.split_sign_changes_correct_nbh hide_fact quasi_sturm_seq.hd_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const_aux (*>*) lemma (in sturm_seq) p_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const: "poly p x⇩_{0}≠ 0 ⟹ eventually (λx. sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" using hd_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const by simp text ‹ If $x$ is a root of $p$ and $p$ is not the zero polynomial, the number of sign changes of a Sturm chain of $p$ decreases by 1 at $x$. › lemma (in sturm_seq) p_zero: assumes "poly p x⇩_{0}= 0" "p ≠ 0" shows "eventually (λx. sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps x⇩_{0}+ (if x<x⇩_{0}then 1 else 0)) (at x⇩_{0})" proof- from ps_first_two obtain q ps' where [simp]: "ps = p#q#ps'" . hence "ps!1 = q" by simp have "eventually (λx. x ≠ x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" by (simp add: eventually_at, rule exI[of _ 1], simp) moreover from p_squarefree and assms(1) have "poly q x⇩_{0}≠ 0" by simp { have A: "quasi_sturm_seq ps" .. with quasi_sturm_seq_Cons[of p "q#ps'"] interpret quasi_sturm_seq "q#ps'" by simp from ‹poly q x⇩_{0}≠ 0› have "eventually (λx. sign_changes (q#ps') x = sign_changes (q#ps') x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" using hd_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const[where x⇩_{0}=x⇩_{0}] by simp } moreover note poly_neighbourhood_without_roots[OF assms(2)] deriv[OF assms(1)] ultimately have A: "eventually (λx. x ≠ x⇩_{0}∧ poly p x ≠ 0 ∧ sgn (poly (p*ps!1) x) = (if x > x⇩_{0}then 1 else -1) ∧ sign_changes (q#ps') x = sign_changes (q#ps') x⇩_{0}) (at x⇩_{0})" by (simp only: ‹ps!1 = q›, intro eventually_conj) show ?thesis proof (rule eventually_mono[OF A], clarify, goal_cases) case prems: (1 x) from zero_less_mult_pos have zero_less_mult_pos': "⋀a b. ⟦(0::real) < a*b; 0 < b⟧ ⟹ 0 < a" by (subgoal_tac "a*b = b*a", auto) from prems have "poly q x ≠ 0" and q_sgn: "sgn (poly q x) = (if x < x⇩_{0}then -sgn (poly p x) else sgn (poly p x))" by (auto simp add: sgn_real_def elim: linorder_neqE_linordered_idom dest: mult_neg_neg zero_less_mult_pos zero_less_mult_pos' split: if_split_asm) from sign_changes_distrib[OF ‹poly q x ≠ 0›, of "[p]" ps'] have "sign_changes ps x = sign_changes [p,q] x + sign_changes (q#ps') x" by simp also from q_sgn and ‹poly p x ≠ 0› have "sign_changes [p,q] x = (if x<x⇩_{0}then 1 else 0)" by (simp add: sign_changes_def sgn_zero_iff split: if_split_asm) also note prems(4) also from assms(1) have "sign_changes (q#ps') x⇩_{0}= sign_changes ps x⇩_{0}" by (simp add: sign_changes_def) finally show ?case by simp qed qed text ‹ With these two results, we can now show that if $p$ is nonzero, the number of roots in an interval of the form $(a;b]$ is the difference of the sign changes of a Sturm sequence of $p$ at $a$ and $b$.\\ First, however, we prove the following auxiliary lemma that shows that if a function $f: \RR\to\NN$ is locally constant at any $x\in(a;b]$, it is constant across the entire interval $(a;b]$: › lemma count_roots_between_aux: assumes "a ≤ b" assumes "∀x::real. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ⟶ eventually (λξ. f ξ = (f x::nat)) (at x)" shows "∀x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ⟶ f x = f b" proof (clarify) fix x assume "x > a" "x ≤ b" with assms have "∀x'. x ≤ x' ∧ x' ≤ b ⟶ eventually (λξ. f ξ = f x') (at x')" by auto from fun_eq_in_ivl[OF ‹x ≤ b› this] show "f x = f b" . qed text ‹ Now we can prove the actual root-counting theorem: › theorem (in sturm_seq) count_roots_between: assumes [simp]: "p ≠ 0" "a ≤ b" shows "sign_changes ps a - sign_changes ps b = card {x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" proof- have "sign_changes ps a - int (sign_changes ps b) = card {x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" using ‹a ≤ b› proof (induction "card {x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" arbitrary: a b rule: less_induct) case (less a b) show ?case proof (cases "∃x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0") case False hence no_roots: "{x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} = {}" (is "?roots=_") by auto hence card_roots: "card ?roots = (0::int)" by (subst no_roots, simp) show ?thesis proof (simp only: card_roots eq_iff_diff_eq_0[symmetric] of_nat_eq_iff, cases "poly p a = 0") case False with no_roots show "sign_changes ps a = sign_changes ps b" by (force intro: fun_eq_in_ivl ‹a ≤ b› p_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const) next case True have A: "∀x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ⟶ sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps b" apply (rule count_roots_between_aux, fact, clarify) apply (rule p_nonzero_imp_sign_changes_const) apply (insert False, simp) done have "eventually (λx. x > a ⟶ sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps a) (at a)" apply (rule eventually_mono [OF p_zero[OF ‹poly p a = 0› ‹p ≠ 0›]]) apply force done then obtain δ where δ_props: "δ > 0" "∀x. x > a ∧ x < a+δ ⟶ sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps a" by (auto simp: eventually_at dist_real_def) show "sign_changes ps a = sign_changes ps b" proof (cases "a = b") case False define x where "x = min (a+δ/2) b" with False have "a < x" "x < a+δ" "x ≤ b" using ‹δ > 0› ‹a ≤ b› by simp_all from δ_props ‹a < x› ‹x < a+δ› have "sign_changes ps a = sign_changes ps x" by simp also from A ‹a < x› ‹x ≤ b› have "... = sign_changes ps b" by blast finally show ?thesis . qed simp qed next case True from poly_roots_finite[OF assms(1)] have fin: "finite {x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" by (force intro: finite_subset) from True have "{x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} ≠ {}" by blast with fin have card_greater_0: "card {x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} > 0" by fastforce define x⇩_{2}where "x⇩_{2}= Min {x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" from Min_in[OF fin] and True have x⇩_{2}_props: "x⇩_{2}> a" "x⇩_{2}≤ b" "poly p x⇩_{2}= 0" unfolding x⇩_{2}_def by blast+ from Min_le[OF fin] x⇩_{2}_props have x⇩_{2}_le: "⋀x'. ⟦x' > a; x' ≤ b; poly p x' = 0⟧ ⟹ x⇩_{2}≤ x'" unfolding x⇩_{2}_def by simp have left: "{x. a < x ∧ x ≤ x⇩_{2}∧ poly p x = 0} = {x⇩_{2}}" using x⇩_{2}_props x⇩_{2}_le by force hence [simp]: "card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ x⇩_{2}∧ poly p x = 0} = 1" by simp from p_zero[OF ‹poly p x⇩_{2}= 0› ‹p ≠ 0›, unfolded eventually_at dist_real_def] guess ε .. hence ε_props: "ε > 0" "∀x. x ≠ x⇩_{2}∧ ¦x - x⇩_{2}¦ < ε ⟶ sign_changes ps x = sign_changes ps x⇩_{2}+ (if x < x⇩_{2}then 1 else 0)" by auto define x⇩_{1}where "x⇩_{1}= max (x⇩_{2}- ε / 2) a" have "¦x⇩_{1}- x⇩_{2}¦ < ε" using ‹ε > 0› x⇩_{2}_props by (simp add: x⇩_{1}_def) hence "sign_changes ps x⇩_{1}= (if x⇩_{1}< x⇩_{2}then sign_changes ps x⇩_{2}+ 1 else sign_changes ps x⇩_{2})" using ε_props(2) by (cases "x⇩_{1}= x⇩_{2}", auto) hence "sign_changes ps x⇩_{1}- sign_changes ps x⇩_{2}= 1" unfolding x⇩_{1}_def using x⇩_{2}_props ‹ε > 0› by simp also have "x⇩_{2}∉ {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ x⇩_{1}∧ poly p x = 0}" unfolding x⇩_{1}_def using ‹ε > 0› by force with left have "{x. a < x ∧ x ≤ x⇩_{1}∧ poly p x = 0} = {}" by force with less(1)[of a x⇩_{1}] have "sign_changes ps x⇩_{1}= sign_changes ps a" unfolding x⇩_{1}_def ‹ε > 0› by (force simp: card_greater_0) finally have signs_left: "sign_changes ps a - int (sign_changes ps x⇩_{2}) = 1" by simp have "{x. x > a ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} = {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ x⇩_{2}∧ poly p x = 0} ∪ {x. x⇩_{2}< x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" using x⇩_{2}_props by auto also note left finally have A: "card {x. x⇩_{2}< x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} + 1 = card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" using fin by simp hence "card {x. x⇩_{2}< x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} < card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" by simp from less(1)[OF this x⇩_{2}_props(2)] and A have signs_right: "sign_changes ps x⇩_{2}- int (sign_changes ps b) + 1 = card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" by simp from signs_left and signs_right show ?thesis by simp qed qed thus ?thesis by simp qed text ‹ By applying this result to a sufficiently large upper bound, we can effectively count the number of roots ``between $a$ and infinity'', i.\,e. the roots greater than $a$: › lemma (in sturm_seq) count_roots_above: assumes "p ≠ 0" shows "sign_changes ps a - sign_changes_inf ps = card {x. x > a ∧ poly p x = 0}" proof- have "p ∈ set ps" using hd_in_set[OF ps_not_Nil] by simp have "finite (set ps)" by simp from polys_inf_sign_thresholds[OF this] guess l u . note lu_props = this let ?u = "max a u" {fix x assume "poly p x = 0" hence "x ≤ ?u" using lu_props(3)[OF ‹p ∈ set ps›, of x] ‹p ≠ 0› by (cases "u ≤ x", auto simp: sgn_zero_iff) } note [simp] = this from lu_props have "map (λp. sgn (poly p ?u)) ps = map poly_inf ps" by simp hence "sign_changes ps a - sign_changes_inf ps = sign_changes ps a - sign_changes ps ?u" by (simp_all only: sign_changes_def sign_changes_inf_def) also from count_roots_between[OF assms] lu_props have "... = card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ ?u ∧ poly p x = 0}" by simp also have "{x. a < x ∧ x ≤ ?u ∧ poly p x = 0} = {x. a < x ∧ poly p x = 0}" using lu_props by auto finally show ?thesis . qed text ‹ The same works analogously for the number of roots below $a$ and the total number of roots. › lemma (in sturm_seq) count_roots_below: assumes "p ≠ 0" shows "sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes ps a = card {x. x ≤ a ∧ poly p x = 0}" proof- have "p ∈ set ps" using hd_in_set[OF ps_not_Nil] by simp have "finite (set ps)" by simp from polys_inf_sign_thresholds[OF this] guess l u . note lu_props = this let ?l = "min a l" {fix x assume "poly p x = 0" hence "x > ?l" using lu_props(4)[OF ‹p ∈ set ps›, of x] ‹p ≠ 0› by (cases "l < x", auto simp: sgn_zero_iff) } note [simp] = this from lu_props have "map (λp. sgn (poly p ?l)) ps = map poly_neg_inf ps" by simp hence "sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes ps a = sign_changes ps ?l - sign_changes ps a" by (simp_all only: sign_changes_def sign_changes_neg_inf_def) also from count_roots_between[OF assms] lu_props have "... = card {x. ?l < x ∧ x ≤ a ∧ poly p x = 0}" by simp also have "{x. ?l < x ∧ x ≤ a ∧ poly p x = 0} = {x. a ≥ x ∧ poly p x = 0}" using lu_props by auto finally show ?thesis . qed lemma (in sturm_seq) count_roots: assumes "p ≠ 0" shows "sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes_inf ps = card {x. poly p x = 0}" proof- have "finite (set ps)" by simp from polys_inf_sign_thresholds[OF this] guess l u . note lu_props = this from lu_props have "map (λp. sgn (poly p l)) ps = map poly_neg_inf ps" "map (λp. sgn (poly p u)) ps = map poly_inf ps" by simp_all hence "sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes_inf ps = sign_changes ps l - sign_changes ps u" by (simp_all only: sign_changes_def sign_changes_inf_def sign_changes_neg_inf_def) also from count_roots_between[OF assms] lu_props have "... = card {x. l < x ∧ x ≤ u ∧ poly p x = 0}" by simp also have "{x. l < x ∧ x ≤ u ∧ poly p x = 0} = {x. poly p x = 0}" using lu_props assms by simp finally show ?thesis . qed subsection ‹Constructing Sturm sequences› subsection ‹The canonical Sturm sequence› text ‹ In this subsection, we will present the canonical Sturm sequence construction for a polynomial $p$ without multiple roots that is very similar to the Euclidean algorithm: $$p_i = \begin{cases} p & \text{for}\ i = 1\\ p' & \text{for}\ i = 2\\ -p_{i-2}\ \text{mod}\ p_{i-1} & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$ We break off the sequence at the first constant polynomial. › (*<*) lemma degree_mod_less': "degree q ≠ 0 ⟹ degree (p mod q) < degree q" by (metis degree_0 degree_mod_less not_gr0) (*>*) function sturm_aux where "sturm_aux (p :: real poly) q = (if degree q = 0 then [p,q] else p # sturm_aux q (-(p mod q)))" by (pat_completeness, simp_all) termination by (relation "measure (degree ∘ snd)", simp_all add: o_def degree_mod_less') (*<*) declare sturm_aux.simps[simp del] (*>*) definition sturm where "sturm p = sturm_aux p (pderiv p)" text ‹Next, we show some simple facts about this construction:› lemma sturm_0[simp]: "sturm 0 = [0,0]" by (unfold sturm_def, subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) lemma [simp]: "sturm_aux p q = [] ⟷ False" by (induction p q rule: sturm_aux.induct, subst sturm_aux.simps, auto) lemma sturm_neq_Nil[simp]: "sturm p ≠ []" unfolding sturm_def by simp lemma [simp]: "hd (sturm p) = p" unfolding sturm_def by (subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) lemma [simp]: "p ∈ set (sturm p)" using hd_in_set[OF sturm_neq_Nil] by simp lemma [simp]: "length (sturm p) ≥ 2" proof- {fix q have "length (sturm_aux p q) ≥ 2" by (induction p q rule: sturm_aux.induct, subst sturm_aux.simps, auto) } thus ?thesis unfolding sturm_def . qed lemma [simp]: "degree (last (sturm p)) = 0" proof- {fix q have "degree (last (sturm_aux p q)) = 0" by (induction p q rule: sturm_aux.induct, subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) } thus ?thesis unfolding sturm_def . qed lemma [simp]: "sturm_aux p q ! 0 = p" by (subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) lemma [simp]: "sturm_aux p q ! Suc 0 = q" by (subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) lemma [simp]: "sturm p ! 0 = p" unfolding sturm_def by simp lemma [simp]: "sturm p ! Suc 0 = pderiv p" unfolding sturm_def by simp lemma sturm_indices: assumes "i < length (sturm p) - 2" shows "sturm p!(i+2) = -(sturm p!i mod sturm p!(i+1))" proof- {fix ps q have "⟦ps = sturm_aux p q; i < length ps - 2⟧ ⟹ ps!(i+2) = -(ps!i mod ps!(i+1))" proof (induction p q arbitrary: ps i rule: sturm_aux.induct) case (1 p q) show ?case proof (cases "i = 0") case False then obtain i' where [simp]: "i = Suc i'" by (cases i, simp_all) hence "length ps ≥ 4" using 1 by simp with 1(2) have deg: "degree q ≠ 0" by (subst (asm) sturm_aux.simps, simp split: if_split_asm) with 1(2) obtain ps' where [simp]: "ps = p # ps'" by (subst (asm) sturm_aux.simps, simp) with 1(2) deg have ps': "ps' = sturm_aux q (-(p mod q))" by (subst (asm) sturm_aux.simps, simp) from ‹length ps ≥ 4› and ‹ps = p # ps'› 1(3) False have "i - 1 < length ps' - 2" by simp from 1(1)[OF deg ps' this] show ?thesis by simp next case True with 1(3) have "length ps ≥ 3" by simp with 1(2) have "degree q ≠ 0" by (subst (asm) sturm_aux.simps, simp split: if_split_asm) with 1(2) have [simp]: "sturm_aux p q ! Suc (Suc 0) = -(p mod q)" by (subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) from True have "ps!i = p" "ps!(i+1) = q" "ps!(i+2) = -(p mod q)" by (simp_all add: 1(2)) thus ?thesis by simp qed qed} from this[OF sturm_def assms] show ?thesis . qed text ‹ If the Sturm sequence construction is applied to polynomials $p$ and $q$, the greatest common divisor of $p$ and $q$ a divisor of every element in the sequence. This is obvious from the similarity to Euclid's algorithm for computing the GCD. › lemma sturm_aux_gcd: "r ∈ set (sturm_aux p q) ⟹ gcd p q dvd r" proof (induction p q rule: sturm_aux.induct) case (1 p q) show ?case proof (cases "r = p") case False with 1(2) have r: "r ∈ set (sturm_aux q (-(p mod q)))" by (subst (asm) sturm_aux.simps, simp split: if_split_asm, subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) show ?thesis proof (cases "degree q = 0") case False hence "q ≠ 0" by force with 1(1) [OF False r] show ?thesis by (simp add: gcd_mod_right ac_simps) next case True with 1(2) and ‹r ≠ p› have "r = q" by (subst (asm) sturm_aux.simps, simp) thus ?thesis by simp qed qed simp qed lemma sturm_gcd: "r ∈ set (sturm p) ⟹ gcd p (pderiv p) dvd r" unfolding sturm_def by (rule sturm_aux_gcd) text ‹ If two adjacent polynomials in the result of the canonical Sturm chain construction both have a root at some $x$, this $x$ is a root of all polynomials in the sequence. › lemma sturm_adjacent_root_propagate_left: assumes "i < length (sturm (p :: real poly)) - 1" assumes "poly (sturm p ! i) x = 0" and "poly (sturm p ! (i + 1)) x = 0" shows "∀j≤i+1. poly (sturm p ! j) x = 0" using assms(2) proof (intro sturm_adjacent_root_aux[OF assms(1,2,3)], goal_cases) case prems: (1 i x) let ?p = "sturm p ! i" let ?q = "sturm p ! (i + 1)" let ?r = "sturm p ! (i + 2)" from sturm_indices[OF prems(2)] have "?p = ?p div ?q * ?q - ?r" by (simp add: div_mult_mod_eq) hence "poly ?p x = poly (?p div ?q * ?q - ?r) x" by simp hence "poly ?p x = -poly ?r x" using prems(3) by simp thus ?case by (simp add: sgn_minus) qed text ‹ Consequently, if this is the case in the canonical Sturm chain of $p$, $p$ must have multiple roots. › lemma sturm_adjacent_root_not_squarefree: assumes "i < length (sturm (p :: real poly)) - 1" "poly (sturm p ! i) x = 0" "poly (sturm p ! (i + 1)) x = 0" shows "¬rsquarefree p" proof- from sturm_adjacent_root_propagate_left[OF assms] have "poly p x = 0" "poly (pderiv p) x = 0" by auto thus ?thesis by (auto simp: rsquarefree_roots) qed text ‹ Since the second element of the sequence is chosen to be the derivative of $p$, $p_1$ and $p_2$ fulfil the property demanded by the definition of a Sturm sequence that they locally have opposite sign left of a root $x$ of $p$ and the same sign to the right of $x$. › lemma sturm_firsttwo_signs_aux: assumes "(p :: real poly) ≠ 0" "q ≠ 0" assumes q_pderiv: "eventually (λx. sgn (poly q x) = sgn (poly (pderiv p) x)) (at x⇩_{0})" assumes p_0: "poly p (x⇩_{0}::real) = 0" shows "eventually (λx. sgn (poly (p*q) x) = (if x > x⇩_{0}then 1 else -1)) (at x⇩_{0})" proof- have A: "eventually (λx. poly p x ≠ 0 ∧ poly q x ≠ 0 ∧ sgn (poly q x) = sgn (poly (pderiv p) x)) (at x⇩_{0})" using ‹p ≠ 0› ‹q ≠ 0› by (intro poly_neighbourhood_same_sign q_pderiv poly_neighbourhood_without_roots eventually_conj) then obtain ε where ε_props: "ε > 0" "∀x. x ≠ x⇩_{0}∧ ¦x - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε ⟶ poly p x ≠ 0 ∧ poly q x ≠ 0 ∧ sgn (poly (pderiv p) x) = sgn (poly q x)" by (auto simp: eventually_at dist_real_def) have sqr_pos: "⋀x::real. x ≠ 0 ⟹ sgn x * sgn x = 1" by (auto simp: sgn_real_def) show ?thesis proof (simp only: eventually_at dist_real_def, rule exI[of _ ε], intro conjI, fact ‹ε > 0›, clarify) fix x assume "x ≠ x⇩_{0}" "¦x - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε" with ε_props have [simp]: "poly p x ≠ 0" "poly q x ≠ 0" "sgn (poly (pderiv p) x) = sgn (poly q x)" by auto show "sgn (poly (p*q) x) = (if x > x⇩_{0}then 1 else -1)" proof (cases "x ≥ x⇩_{0}") case True with ‹x ≠ x⇩_{0}› have "x > x⇩_{0}" by simp from poly_MVT[OF this, of p] guess ξ .. note ξ_props = this with ‹¦x - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε› ‹poly p x⇩_{0}= 0› ‹x > x⇩_{0}› ε_props have "¦ξ - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε" "sgn (poly p x) = sgn (x - x⇩_{0}) * sgn (poly q ξ)" by (auto simp add: q_pderiv sgn_mult) moreover from ξ_props ε_props ‹¦x - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε› have "∀t. ξ ≤ t ∧ t ≤ x ⟶ poly q t ≠ 0" by auto hence "sgn (poly q ξ) = sgn (poly q x)" using ξ_props ε_props by (intro no_roots_inbetween_imp_same_sign, simp_all) ultimately show ?thesis using True ‹x ≠ x⇩_{0}› ε_props ξ_props by (auto simp: sgn_mult sqr_pos) next case False hence "x < x⇩_{0}" by simp hence sgn: "sgn (x - x⇩_{0}) = -1" by simp from poly_MVT[OF ‹x < x⇩_{0}›, of p] guess ξ .. note ξ_props = this with ‹¦x - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε› ‹poly p x⇩_{0}= 0› ‹x < x⇩_{0}› ε_props have "¦ξ - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε" "poly p x = (x - x⇩_{0}) * poly (pderiv p) ξ" "poly p ξ ≠ 0" by (auto simp: field_simps) hence "sgn (poly p x) = sgn (x - x⇩_{0}) * sgn (poly q ξ)" using ε_props ξ_props by (auto simp: q_pderiv sgn_mult) moreover from ξ_props ε_props ‹¦x - x⇩_{0}¦ < ε› have "∀t. x ≤ t ∧ t ≤ ξ ⟶ poly q t ≠ 0" by auto hence "sgn (poly q ξ) = sgn (poly q x)" using ξ_props ε_props by (rule_tac sym, intro no_roots_inbetween_imp_same_sign, simp_all) ultimately show ?thesis using False ‹x ≠ x⇩_{0}› by (auto simp: sgn_mult sqr_pos) qed qed qed lemma sturm_firsttwo_signs: fixes ps :: "real poly list" assumes squarefree: "rsquarefree p" assumes p_0: "poly p (x⇩_{0}::real) = 0" shows "eventually (λx. sgn (poly (p * sturm p ! 1) x) = (if x > x⇩_{0}then 1 else -1)) (at x⇩_{0})" proof- from assms have [simp]: "p ≠ 0" by (auto simp add: rsquarefree_roots) with squarefree p_0 have [simp]: "pderiv p ≠ 0" by (auto simp add:rsquarefree_roots) from assms show ?thesis by (intro sturm_firsttwo_signs_aux, simp_all add: rsquarefree_roots) qed text ‹ The construction also obviously fulfils the property about three adjacent polynomials in the sequence. › lemma sturm_signs: assumes squarefree: "rsquarefree p" assumes i_in_range: "i < length (sturm (p :: real poly)) - 2" assumes q_0: "poly (sturm p ! (i+1)) x = 0" (is "poly ?q x = 0") shows "poly (sturm p ! (i+2)) x * poly (sturm p ! i) x < 0" (is "poly ?p x * poly ?r x < 0") proof- from sturm_indices[OF i_in_range] have "sturm p ! (i+2) = - (sturm p ! i mod sturm p ! (i+1))" (is "?r = - (?p mod ?q)") . hence "-?r = ?p mod ?q" by simp with div_mult_mod_eq[of ?p ?q] have "?p div ?q * ?q - ?r = ?p" by simp hence "poly (?p div ?q) x * poly ?q x - poly ?r x = poly ?p x" by (metis poly_diff poly_mult) with q_0 have r_x: "poly ?r x = -poly ?p x" by simp moreover have sqr_pos: "⋀x::real. x ≠ 0 ⟹ x * x > 0" apply (case_tac "x ≥ 0") by (simp_all add: mult_neg_neg) from sturm_adjacent_root_not_squarefree[of i p] assms r_x have "poly ?p x * poly ?p x > 0" by (force intro: sqr_pos) ultimately show "poly ?r x * poly ?p x < 0" by simp qed text ‹ Finally, if $p$ contains no multiple roots, @{term "sturm p"}, i.e. the canonical Sturm sequence for $p$, is a Sturm sequence and can be used to determine the number of roots of $p$. › lemma sturm_seq_sturm[simp]: assumes "rsquarefree p" shows "sturm_seq (sturm p) p" proof show "sturm p ≠ []" by simp show "hd (sturm p) = p" by simp show "length (sturm p) ≥ 2" by simp from assms show "⋀x. ¬(poly p x = 0 ∧ poly (sturm p ! 1) x = 0)" by (simp add: rsquarefree_roots) next fix x :: real and y :: real have "degree (last (sturm p)) = 0" by simp then obtain c where "last (sturm p) = [:c:]" by (cases "last (sturm p)", simp split: if_split_asm) thus "⋀x y. sgn (poly (last (sturm p)) x) = sgn (poly (last (sturm p)) y)" by simp next from sturm_firsttwo_signs[OF assms] show "⋀x⇩_{0}. poly p x⇩_{0}= 0 ⟹ eventually (λx. sgn (poly (p*sturm p ! 1) x) = (if x > x⇩_{0}then 1 else -1)) (at x⇩_{0})" by simp next from sturm_signs[OF assms] show "⋀i x. ⟦i < length (sturm p) - 2; poly (sturm p ! (i + 1)) x = 0⟧ ⟹ poly (sturm p ! (i + 2)) x * poly (sturm p ! i) x < 0" by simp qed subsubsection ‹Canonical squarefree Sturm sequence› text ‹ The previous construction does not work for polynomials with multiple roots, but we can simply ``divide away'' multiple roots by dividing $p$ by the GCD of $p$ and $p'$. The resulting polynomial has the same roots as $p$, but with multiplicity 1, allowing us to again use the canonical construction. › definition sturm_squarefree where "sturm_squarefree p = sturm (p div (gcd p (pderiv p)))" lemma sturm_squarefree_not_Nil[simp]: "sturm_squarefree p ≠ []" by (simp add: sturm_squarefree_def) lemma sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree: assumes [simp]: "p ≠ 0" defines [simp]: "p' ≡ p div gcd p (pderiv p)" shows "sturm_seq (sturm_squarefree p) p'" proof have "rsquarefree p'" proof (subst rsquarefree_roots, clarify) fix x assume "poly p' x = 0" "poly (pderiv p') x = 0" hence "[:-x,1:] dvd gcd p' (pderiv p')" by (simp add: poly_eq_0_iff_dvd) also from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF assms(1)] have "gcd p' (pderiv p') = 1" by simp finally show False by (simp add: poly_eq_0_iff_dvd[symmetric]) qed from sturm_seq_sturm[OF ‹rsquarefree p'›] interpret sturm_seq: sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree p" p' by (simp add: sturm_squarefree_def) show "⋀x y. sgn (poly (last (sturm_squarefree p)) x) = sgn (poly (last (sturm_squarefree p)) y)" by simp show "sturm_squarefree p ≠ []" by simp show "hd (sturm_squarefree p) = p'" by (simp add: sturm_squarefree_def) show "length (sturm_squarefree p) ≥ 2" by simp have [simp]: "sturm_squarefree p ! 0 = p'" "sturm_squarefree p ! Suc 0 = pderiv p'" by (simp_all add: sturm_squarefree_def) from ‹rsquarefree p'› show "⋀x. ¬ (poly p' x = 0 ∧ poly (sturm_squarefree p ! 1) x = 0)" by (simp add: rsquarefree_roots) from sturm_seq.signs show "⋀i x. ⟦i < length (sturm_squarefree p) - 2; poly (sturm_squarefree p ! (i + 1)) x = 0⟧ ⟹ poly (sturm_squarefree p ! (i + 2)) x * poly (sturm_squarefree p ! i) x < 0" . from sturm_seq.deriv show "⋀x⇩_{0}. poly p' x⇩_{0}= 0 ⟹ eventually (λx. sgn (poly (p' * sturm_squarefree p ! 1) x) = (if x > x⇩_{0}then 1 else -1)) (at x⇩_{0})" . qed subsubsection ‹Optimisation for multiple roots› text ‹ We can also define the following non-canonical Sturm sequence that is obtained by taking the canonical Sturm sequence of $p$ (possibly with multiple roots) and then dividing the entire sequence by the GCD of $p$ and its derivative. › definition sturm_squarefree' where "sturm_squarefree' p = (let d = gcd p (pderiv p) in map (λp'. p' div d) (sturm p))" text ‹ This construction also has all the desired properties: › lemma sturm_squarefree'_adjacent_root_propagate_left: assumes "p ≠ 0" assumes "i < length (sturm_squarefree' (p :: real poly)) - 1" assumes "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! i) x = 0" and "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! (i + 1)) x = 0" shows "∀j≤i+1. poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! j) x = 0" proof (intro sturm_adjacent_root_aux[OF assms(2,3,4)], goal_cases) case prems: (1 i x) define q where "q = sturm p ! i" define r where "r = sturm p ! (Suc i)" define s where "s = sturm p ! (Suc (Suc i))" define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" define q' r' s' where "q' = q div d" and "r' = r div d" and "s' = s div d" from ‹p ≠ 0› have "d ≠ 0" unfolding d_def by simp from prems(1) have i_in_range: "i < length (sturm p) - 2" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def by simp have [simp]: "d dvd q" "d dvd r" "d dvd s" unfolding q_def r_def s_def d_def using i_in_range by (auto intro: sturm_gcd) hence qrs_simps: "q = q' * d" "r = r' * d" "s = s' * d" unfolding q'_def r'_def s'_def by (simp_all) with prems(2) i_in_range have r'_0: "poly r' x = 0" unfolding r'_def r_def d_def sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def by simp hence r_0: "poly r x = 0" by (simp add: ‹r = r' * d›) from sturm_indices[OF i_in_range] have "q = q div r * r - s" unfolding q_def r_def s_def by (simp add: div_mult_mod_eq) hence "q' = (q div r * r - s) div d" by (simp add: q'_def) also have "... = (q div r * r) div d - s'" by (simp add: s'_def poly_div_diff_left) also have "... = q div r * r' - s'" using dvd_div_mult[OF ‹d dvd r›, of "q div r"] by (simp add: algebra_simps r'_def) also have "q div r = q' div r'" by (simp add: qrs_simps ‹d ≠ 0›) finally have "poly q' x = poly (q' div r' * r' - s') x" by simp also from r'_0 have "... = -poly s' x" by simp finally have "poly s' x = -poly q' x" by simp thus ?case using i_in_range unfolding q'_def s'_def q_def s_def sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def by (simp add: d_def sgn_minus) qed lemma sturm_squarefree'_adjacent_roots: assumes "p ≠ 0" "i < length (sturm_squarefree' (p :: real poly)) - 1" "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! i) x = 0" "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! (i + 1)) x = 0" shows False proof- define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" from sturm_squarefree'_adjacent_root_propagate_left[OF assms] have "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! 0) x = 0" "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! 1) x = 0" by auto hence "poly (p div d) x = 0" "poly (pderiv p div d) x = 0" using assms(2) unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def by auto moreover from div_gcd_coprime assms(1) have "coprime (p div d) (pderiv p div d)" unfolding d_def by auto ultimately show False using coprime_imp_no_common_roots by auto qed lemma sturm_squarefree'_signs: assumes "p ≠ 0" assumes i_in_range: "i < length (sturm_squarefree' (p :: real poly)) - 2" assumes q_0: "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! (i+1)) x = 0" (is "poly ?q x = 0") shows "poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! (i+2)) x * poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! i) x < 0" (is "poly ?r x * poly ?p x < 0") proof- define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" with ‹p ≠ 0› have [simp]: "d ≠ 0" by simp from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] coprime_imp_no_common_roots have rsquarefree: "rsquarefree (p div d)" by (auto simp: rsquarefree_roots d_def) from i_in_range have i_in_range': "i < length (sturm p) - 2" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def by simp hence "d dvd (sturm p ! i)" (is "d dvd ?p'") "d dvd (sturm p ! (Suc i))" (is "d dvd ?q'") "d dvd (sturm p ! (Suc (Suc i)))" (is "d dvd ?r'") unfolding d_def by (auto intro: sturm_gcd) hence pqr_simps: "?p' = ?p * d" "?q' = ?q * d" "?r' = ?r * d" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def using i_in_range' by (auto simp: dvd_div_mult_self) with q_0 have q'_0: "poly ?q' x = 0" by simp from sturm_indices[OF i_in_range'] have "sturm p ! (i+2) = - (sturm p ! i mod sturm p ! (i+1))" . hence "-?r' = ?p' mod ?q'" by simp with div_mult_mod_eq[of ?p' ?q'] have "?p' div ?q' * ?q' - ?r' = ?p'" by simp hence "d*(?p div ?q * ?q - ?r) = d* ?p" by (simp add: pqr_simps algebra_simps) hence "?p div ?q * ?q - ?r = ?p" by simp hence "poly (?p div ?q) x * poly ?q x - poly ?r x = poly ?p x" by (metis poly_diff poly_mult) with q_0 have r_x: "poly ?r x = -poly ?p x" by simp from sturm_squarefree'_adjacent_roots[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] i_in_range q_0 have "poly ?p x ≠ 0" by force moreover have sqr_pos: "⋀x::real. x ≠ 0 ⟹ x * x > 0" apply (case_tac "x ≥ 0") by (simp_all add: mult_neg_neg) ultimately show ?thesis using r_x by simp qed text ‹ This approach indeed also yields a valid squarefree Sturm sequence for the polynomial $p/\text{gcd}(p,p')$. › lemma sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree': assumes "(p :: real poly) ≠ 0" defines "d ≡ gcd p (pderiv p)" shows "sturm_seq (sturm_squarefree' p) (p div d)" (is "sturm_seq ?ps' ?p'") proof show "?ps' ≠ []" "hd ?ps' = ?p'" "2 ≤ length ?ps'" by (simp_all add: sturm_squarefree'_def d_def hd_map) from assms have "d ≠ 0" by simp { have "d dvd last (sturm p)" unfolding d_def by (rule sturm_gcd, simp) hence *: "last (sturm p) = last ?ps' * d" by (simp add: sturm_squarefree'_def last_map d_def dvd_div_mult_self) then have "last ?ps' dvd last (sturm p)" by simp with * dvd_imp_degree_le[OF this] have "degree (last ?ps') ≤ degree (last (sturm p))" using ‹d ≠ 0› by (cases "last ?ps' = 0") auto hence "degree (last ?ps') = 0" by simp then obtain c where "last ?ps' = [:c:]" by (cases "last ?ps'", simp split: if_split_asm) thus "⋀x y. sgn (poly (last ?ps') x) = sgn (poly (last ?ps') y)" by simp } have squarefree: "rsquarefree ?p'" using ‹p ≠ 0› by (subst rsquarefree_roots, unfold d_def, intro allI coprime_imp_no_common_roots poly_div_gcd_squarefree) have [simp]: "sturm_squarefree' p ! Suc 0 = pderiv p div d" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def sturm_def d_def by (subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) have coprime: "coprime ?p' (pderiv p div d)" unfolding d_def using div_gcd_coprime ‹p ≠ 0› by blast thus squarefree': "⋀x. ¬ (poly (p div d) x = 0 ∧ poly (sturm_squarefree' p ! 1) x = 0)" using coprime_imp_no_common_roots by simp from sturm_squarefree'_signs[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] show "⋀i x. ⟦i < length ?ps' - 2; poly (?ps' ! (i + 1)) x = 0⟧ ⟹ poly (?ps' ! (i + 2)) x * poly (?ps' ! i) x < 0" . have [simp]: "?p' ≠ 0" using squarefree by (simp add: rsquarefree_def) have A: "?p' = ?ps' ! 0" "pderiv p div d = ?ps' ! 1" by (simp_all add: sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def sturm_def, subst sturm_aux.simps, simp) have [simp]: "?ps' ! 0 ≠ 0" using squarefree by (auto simp: A rsquarefree_def) fix x⇩_{0}:: real assume "poly ?p' x⇩_{0}= 0" hence "poly p x⇩_{0}= 0" using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] unfolding d_def by simp hence "pderiv p ≠ 0" using ‹p ≠ 0› by (auto dest: pderiv_iszero) with ‹p ≠ 0› ‹poly p x⇩_{0}= 0› have A: "eventually (λx. sgn (poly (p * pderiv p) x) = (if x⇩_{0}< x then 1 else -1)) (at x⇩_{0})" by (intro sturm_firsttwo_signs_aux, simp_all) note ev = eventually_conj[OF A poly_neighbourhood_without_roots[OF ‹d ≠ 0›]] show "eventually (λx. sgn (poly (p div d * sturm_squarefree' p ! 1) x) = (if x⇩_{0}< x then 1 else -1)) (at x⇩_{0})" proof (rule eventually_mono[OF ev], goal_cases) have [intro]: "⋀a (b::real). b ≠ 0 ⟹ a < 0 ⟹ a / (b * b) < 0" "⋀a (b::real). b ≠ 0 ⟹ a > 0 ⟹ a / (b * b) > 0" by ((case_tac "b > 0", auto simp: mult_neg_neg field_simps) [])+ case prems: (1 x) hence [simp]: "poly d x * poly d x > 0" by (cases "poly d x > 0", auto simp: mult_neg_neg) from poly_div_gcd_squarefree_aux(2)[OF ‹pderiv p ≠ 0›] have "poly (p div d) x = 0 ⟷ poly p x = 0" by (simp add: d_def) moreover have "d dvd p" "d dvd pderiv p" unfolding d_def by simp_all ultimately show ?case using prems by (auto simp: sgn_real_def poly_div not_less[symmetric] zero_less_divide_iff split: if_split_asm) qed qed text ‹ This construction is obviously more expensive to compute than the one that \emph{first} divides $p$ by $\text{gcd}(p,p')$ and \emph{then} applies the canonical construction. In this construction, we \emph{first} compute the canonical Sturm sequence of $p$ as if it had no multiple roots and \emph{then} divide by the GCD. However, it can be seen quite easily that unless $x$ is a multiple root of $p$, i.\,e. as long as $\text{gcd}(P,P')\neq 0$, the number of sign changes in a sequence of polynomials does not actually change when we divide the polynomials by $\text{gcd}(p,p')$.\\ There\-fore we can use the ca\-no\-ni\-cal Sturm se\-quence even in the non-square\-free case as long as the borders of the interval we are interested in are not multiple roots of the polynomial. › lemma sign_changes_mult_aux: assumes "d ≠ (0::real)" shows "length (remdups_adj (filter (λx. x ≠ 0) (map ((*) d ∘ f) xs))) = length (remdups_adj (filter (λx. x ≠ 0) (map f xs)))" proof- from assms have inj: "inj ((*) d)" by (auto intro: injI) from assms have [simp]: "filter (λx. ((*) d ∘ f) x ≠ 0) = filter (λx. f x ≠ 0)" "filter ((λx. x ≠ 0) ∘ f) = filter (λx. f x ≠ 0)" by (simp_all add: o_def) have "filter (λx. x ≠ 0) (map ((*) d ∘ f) xs) = map ((*) d ∘ f) (filter (λx. ((*) d ∘ f) x ≠ 0) xs)" by (simp add: filter_map o_def) thus ?thesis using remdups_adj_map_injective[OF inj] assms by (simp add: filter_map map_map[symmetric] del: map_map) qed lemma sturm_sturm_squarefree'_same_sign_changes: fixes p :: "real poly" defines "ps ≡ sturm p" and "ps' ≡ sturm_squarefree' p" shows "poly p x ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) x ≠ 0 ⟹ sign_changes ps' x = sign_changes ps x" "p ≠ 0 ⟹ sign_changes_inf ps' = sign_changes_inf ps" "p ≠ 0 ⟹ sign_changes_neg_inf ps' = sign_changes_neg_inf ps" proof- define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" define p' where "p' = p div d" define s' where "s' = poly_inf d" define s'' where "s'' = poly_neg_inf d" { fix x :: real and q :: "real poly" assume "q ∈ set ps" hence "d dvd q" unfolding d_def ps_def using sturm_gcd by simp hence q_prod: "q = (q div d) * d" unfolding p'_def d_def by (simp add: algebra_simps dvd_mult_div_cancel) have "poly q x = poly d x * poly (q div d) x" by (subst q_prod, simp) hence s1: "sgn (poly q x) = sgn (poly d x) * sgn (poly (q div d) x)" by (subst q_prod, simp add: sgn_mult) from poly_inf_mult have s2: "poly_inf q = s' * poly_inf (q div d)" unfolding s'_def by (subst q_prod, simp) from poly_inf_mult have s3: "poly_neg_inf q = s'' * poly_neg_inf (q div d)" unfolding s''_def by (subst q_prod, simp) note s1 s2 s3 } note signs = this { fix f :: "real poly ⇒ real" and s :: real assume f: "⋀q. q ∈ set ps ⟹ f q = s * f (q div d)" and s: "s ≠ 0" hence "inverse s ≠ 0" by simp {fix q assume "q ∈ set ps" hence "f (q div d) = inverse s * f q" by (subst f[of q], simp_all add: s) } note f' = this have "length (remdups_adj [x←map f (map (λq. q div d) ps). x ≠ 0]) - 1 = length (remdups_adj [x←map (λq. f (q div d)) ps . x ≠ 0]) - 1" by (simp only: sign_changes_def o_def map_map) also have "map (λq. q div d) ps = ps'" by (simp add: ps_def ps'_def sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def) also from f' have "map (λq. f (q div d)) ps = map (λx. ((*)(inverse s) ∘ f) x) ps" by (simp add: o_def) also note sign_changes_mult_aux[OF ‹inverse s ≠ 0›, of f ps] finally have "length (remdups_adj [x←map f ps' . x ≠ 0]) - 1 = length (remdups_adj [x←map f ps . x ≠ 0]) - 1" by simp } note length_remdups_adj = this { fix x assume A: "poly p x ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) x ≠ 0" have "d dvd p" "d dvd pderiv p" unfolding d_def by simp_all with A have "sgn (poly d x) ≠ 0" by (auto simp add: sgn_zero_iff elim: dvdE) thus "sign_changes ps' x = sign_changes ps x" using signs(1) unfolding sign_changes_def by (intro length_remdups_adj[of "λq. sgn (poly q x)"], simp_all) } assume "p ≠ 0" hence "d ≠ 0" unfolding d_def by simp hence "s' ≠ 0" "s'' ≠ 0" unfolding s'_def s''_def by simp_all from length_remdups_adj[of poly_inf s', OF signs(2) ‹s' ≠ 0›] show "sign_changes_inf ps' = sign_changes_inf ps" unfolding sign_changes_inf_def . from length_remdups_adj[of poly_neg_inf s'', OF signs(3) ‹s'' ≠ 0›] show "sign_changes_neg_inf ps' = sign_changes_neg_inf ps" unfolding sign_changes_neg_inf_def . qed subsection ‹Root-counting functions› text ‹ With all these results, we can now define functions that count roots in bounded and unbounded intervals: › definition count_roots_between where "count_roots_between p a b = (if a ≤ b ∧ p ≠ 0 then (let ps = sturm_squarefree p in sign_changes ps a - sign_changes ps b) else 0)" definition count_roots where "count_roots p = (if (p::real poly) = 0 then 0 else (let ps = sturm_squarefree p in sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes_inf ps))" definition count_roots_above where "count_roots_above p a = (if (p::real poly) = 0 then 0 else (let ps = sturm_squarefree p in sign_changes ps a - sign_changes_inf ps))" definition count_roots_below where "count_roots_below p a = (if (p::real poly) = 0 then 0 else (let ps = sturm_squarefree p in sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes ps a))" lemma count_roots_between_correct: "count_roots_between p a b = card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" proof (cases "p ≠ 0 ∧ a ≤ b") case False note False' = this hence "card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} = 0" proof (cases "a < b") case True with False have [simp]: "p = 0" by simp have subset: "{a<..<b} ⊆ {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" by auto from infinite_Ioo[OF True] have "¬finite {a<..<b}" . hence "¬finite {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" using finite_subset[OF subset] by blast thus ?thesis by simp next case False with False' show ?thesis by (auto simp: not_less card_eq_0_iff) qed thus ?thesis unfolding count_roots_between_def Let_def using False by auto next case True hence "p ≠ 0" "a ≤ b" by simp_all define p' where "p' = p div (gcd p (pderiv p))" from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "p' ≠ 0" unfolding p'_def by clarsimp from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree p" p' unfolding p'_def . from poly_roots_finite[OF ‹p' ≠ 0›] have "finite {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p' x = 0}" by fast have "count_roots_between p a b = card {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p' x = 0}" unfolding count_roots_between_def Let_def using True count_roots_between[OF ‹p' ≠ 0› ‹a ≤ b›] by simp also from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "{x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p' x = 0} = {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0}" unfolding p'_def by blast finally show ?thesis . qed lemma count_roots_correct: fixes p :: "real poly" shows "count_roots p = card {x. poly p x = 0}" (is "_ = card ?S") proof (cases "p = 0") case True with finite_subset[of "{0<..<1}" ?S] have "¬finite {x. poly p x = 0}" by (auto simp: infinite_Ioo) thus ?thesis by (simp add: count_roots_def True) next case False define p' where "p' = p div (gcd p (pderiv p))" from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "p' ≠ 0" unfolding p'_def by clarsimp from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree p" p' unfolding p'_def . from count_roots[OF ‹p' ≠ 0›] have "count_roots p = card {x. poly p' x = 0}" unfolding count_roots_def Let_def by (simp add: ‹p ≠ 0›) also from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "{x. poly p' x = 0} = {x. poly p x = 0}" unfolding p'_def by blast finally show ?thesis . qed lemma count_roots_above_correct: fixes p :: "real poly" shows "count_roots_above p a = card {x. x > a ∧ poly p x = 0}" (is "_ = card ?S") proof (cases "p = 0") case True with finite_subset[of "{a<..<a+1}" ?S] have "¬finite {x. x > a ∧ poly p x = 0}" by (auto simp: infinite_Ioo subset_eq) thus ?thesis by (simp add: count_roots_above_def True) next case False define p' where "p' = p div (gcd p (pderiv p))" from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "p' ≠ 0" unfolding p'_def by clarsimp from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree p" p' unfolding p'_def . from count_roots_above[OF ‹p' ≠ 0›] have "count_roots_above p a = card {x. x > a ∧ poly p' x = 0}" unfolding count_roots_above_def Let_def by (simp add: ‹p ≠ 0›) also from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "{x. x > a ∧ poly p' x = 0} = {x. x > a ∧ poly p x = 0}" unfolding p'_def by blast finally show ?thesis . qed lemma count_roots_below_correct: fixes p :: "real poly" shows "count_roots_below p a = card {x. x ≤ a ∧ poly p x = 0}" (is "_ = card ?S") proof (cases "p = 0") case True with finite_subset[of "{a - 1<..<a}" ?S] have "¬finite {x. x ≤ a ∧ poly p x = 0}" by (auto simp: infinite_Ioo subset_eq) thus ?thesis by (simp add: count_roots_below_def True) next case False define p' where "p' = p div (gcd p (pderiv p))" from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "p' ≠ 0" unfolding p'_def by clarsimp from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree p" p' unfolding p'_def . from count_roots_below[OF ‹p' ≠ 0›] have "count_roots_below p a = card {x. x ≤ a ∧ poly p' x = 0}" unfolding count_roots_below_def Let_def by (simp add: ‹p ≠ 0›) also from poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] have "{x. x ≤ a ∧ poly p' x = 0} = {x. x ≤ a ∧ poly p x = 0}" unfolding p'_def by blast finally show ?thesis . qed text ‹ The optimisation explained above can be used to prove more efficient code equations that use the more efficient construction in the case that the interval borders are not multiple roots: › lemma count_roots_between[code]: "count_roots_between p a b = (let q = pderiv p in if a > b ∨ p = 0 then 0 else if (poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly q a ≠ 0) ∧ (poly p b ≠ 0 ∨ poly q b ≠ 0) then (let ps = sturm p in sign_changes ps a - sign_changes ps b) else (let ps = sturm_squarefree p in sign_changes ps a - sign_changes ps b))" proof (cases "a > b ∨ p = 0") case True thus ?thesis by (auto simp add: count_roots_between_def Let_def) next case False note False1 = this hence "a ≤ b" "p ≠ 0" by simp_all thus ?thesis proof (cases "(poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) a ≠ 0) ∧ (poly p b ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) b ≠ 0)") case False thus ?thesis using False1 by (auto simp add: Let_def count_roots_between_def) next case True hence A: "poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) a ≠ 0" and B: "poly p b ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) b ≠ 0" by auto define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" from ‹p ≠ 0› have [simp]: "p div d ≠ 0" using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] by (auto simp add: d_def) from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree'[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree' p" "p div d" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def . note count_roots_between_correct also have "{x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly p x = 0} = {x. a < x ∧ x ≤ b ∧ poly (p div d) x = 0}" unfolding d_def using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] by simp also note count_roots_between[OF ‹p div d ≠ 0› ‹a ≤ b›, symmetric] also note sturm_sturm_squarefree'_same_sign_changes(1)[OF A] also note sturm_sturm_squarefree'_same_sign_changes(1)[OF B] finally show ?thesis using True False by (simp add: Let_def) qed qed lemma count_roots_code[code]: "count_roots (p::real poly) = (if p = 0 then 0 else let ps = sturm p in sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes_inf ps)" proof (cases "p = 0", simp add: count_roots_def) case False define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" from ‹p ≠ 0› have [simp]: "p div d ≠ 0" using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] by (auto simp add: d_def) from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree'[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree' p" "p div d" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def . note count_roots_correct also have "{x. poly p x = 0} = {x. poly (p div d) x = 0}" unfolding d_def using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] by simp also note count_roots[OF ‹p div d ≠ 0›, symmetric] also note sturm_sturm_squarefree'_same_sign_changes(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] also note sturm_sturm_squarefree'_same_sign_changes(3)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] finally show ?thesis using False unfolding Let_def by simp qed lemma count_roots_above_code[code]: "count_roots_above p a = (let q = pderiv p in if p = 0 then 0 else if poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly q a ≠ 0 then (let ps = sturm p in sign_changes ps a - sign_changes_inf ps) else (let ps = sturm_squarefree p in sign_changes ps a - sign_changes_inf ps))" proof (cases "p = 0") case True thus ?thesis by (auto simp add: count_roots_above_def Let_def) next case False note False1 = this hence "p ≠ 0" by simp_all thus ?thesis proof (cases "(poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) a ≠ 0)") case False thus ?thesis using False1 by (auto simp add: Let_def count_roots_above_def) next case True hence A: "poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) a ≠ 0" by simp define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" from ‹p ≠ 0› have [simp]: "p div d ≠ 0" using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] by (auto simp add: d_def) from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree'[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree' p" "p div d" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def . note count_roots_above_correct also have "{x. a < x ∧ poly p x = 0} = {x. a < x ∧ poly (p div d) x = 0}" unfolding d_def using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] by simp also note count_roots_above[OF ‹p div d ≠ 0›, symmetric] also note sturm_sturm_squarefree'_same_sign_changes(1)[OF A] also note sturm_sturm_squarefree'_same_sign_changes(2)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] finally show ?thesis using True False by (simp add: Let_def) qed qed lemma count_roots_below_code[code]: "count_roots_below p a = (let q = pderiv p in if p = 0 then 0 else if poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly q a ≠ 0 then (let ps = sturm p in sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes ps a) else (let ps = sturm_squarefree p in sign_changes_neg_inf ps - sign_changes ps a))" proof (cases "p = 0") case True thus ?thesis by (auto simp add: count_roots_below_def Let_def) next case False note False1 = this hence "p ≠ 0" by simp_all thus ?thesis proof (cases "(poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) a ≠ 0)") case False thus ?thesis using False1 by (auto simp add: Let_def count_roots_below_def) next case True hence A: "poly p a ≠ 0 ∨ poly (pderiv p) a ≠ 0" by simp define d where "d = gcd p (pderiv p)" from ‹p ≠ 0› have [simp]: "p div d ≠ 0" using poly_div_gcd_squarefree(1)[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] by (auto simp add: d_def) from sturm_seq_sturm_squarefree'[OF ‹p ≠ 0›] interpret sturm_seq "sturm_squarefree' p" "p div d" unfolding sturm_squarefree'_def Let_def d_def . note count_roots_below_correct also have "{x. x ≤ a ∧ poly p x = 0} = {x. x ≤ a ∧ poly (p