O_lt_.html -- ACL2 Version 6.3

### O<

the well-founded less-than relation on ordinals up to `epsilon-0`

    Major Section:  ACL2-BUILT-INS

If `x` and `y` are both `o-p`s (see o-p) then `(o< x y)` is true iff `x` is strictly less than `y`. `o<` is well-founded on the `o-p`s. When `x` and `y` are both nonnegative integers, `o<` is just the familiar ``less than'' relation (`<`).

`o<` plays a key role in the formal underpinnings of the ACL2 logic. In order for a recursive definition to be admissible it must be proved to ``terminate.'' By terminate we mean that the arguments to the function ``get smaller'' as the function recurses and this sense of size comparison must be such that there is no ``infinitely descending'' sequence of ever smaller arguments. That is, the relation used to compare successive arguments must be well-founded on the domain being measured.

The most basic way ACL2 provides to prove termination requires the user to supply (perhaps implicitly) a mapping of the argument tuples into the ordinals with some ``measure'' expression in such a way that the measures of the successive argument tuples produced by recursion decrease according to the relation `o<`. The validity of this method rests on the well-foundedness of `o<` on the `o-p`s.

Without loss of generality, suppose the definition in question introduces the function `f`, with one formal parameter `x` (which might be a list of objects). Then we require that there exist a measure expression, `(m x)`, that always produces an `o-p`. Furthermore, consider any recursive call, `(f (d x))`, in the body of the definition. Let `hyps` be the conjunction of terms, each of which is either the test of an `if` in the body or else the negation of such a test, describing the path through the body to the recursive call in question. Then it must be a theorem that

      (IMPLIES hyps (O< (m (d x)) (m x))).

When we say `o<` is ``well-founded'' on the `o-p`s we mean that there is no infinite sequence of `o-p`s such that each is smaller than its predecessor in the sequence. Thus, the theorems that must be proved about `f` when it is introduced establish that it cannot recur forever because each time a recursive call is taken `(m x)` gets smaller. From this, and the syntactic restrictions on definitions, it can be shown (as on page 44 in ``A Computational Logic'', Boyer and Moore, Academic Press, 1979) that there exists a function satisfying the definition; intuitively, the value assigned to any given `x` by the alleged function is that computed by a sufficiently large machine. Hence, the logic is consistent if the axiom defining `f` is added.

See o-p for a discussion of the ordinals and how to compare two ordinals.

The definitional principle permits the use of relations other than `o<` but they must first be proved to be well-founded on some domain. See well-founded-relation. Roughly put, alternative relations are shown well-founded by providing an order-preserving mapping from their domain into the ordinals. See defun for details on how to specify which well-founded relation is to be used.

To see the ACL2 definition of this function, see pf.