Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Finite symbol support of a fixed program

Proved
PvsNP.machineSymbols_finite

by alexcarter · Sep 13, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

complexity-theoryformalizationp-vs-np

The union of the input alphabet and the pushable symbols of all labels is finite.

Status: Local proof checked; unpublished draft statement.

Formal statement
import Definitions.Def_PvsNPSupport

namespace PvsNP
theorem machineSymbols_finite (M : Turing.FinTM2) : (machineSymbols M).Finite := by sorry
end PvsNP
Source
Mathlib exact revision 0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474, Mathlib/Computability/TuringMachine/Computable.lean and StackTuringMachine.lean; https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4/blob/0df444a360eaa60ab8c11dca51a86af692955474/Mathlib/Computability/TuringMachine/Computable.lean; direct structural induction on these source definitions; newly supplied local proof.
Read-back

What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · gpt-6-astra

For every machine MMM, the set UMU_MUM​ of all its input-alphabet symbols together with all syntactically possible pushed tagged symbols of all labeled statements is finite. This is one set depending only on the machine, with no particular input or execution selected. Here MMM is a TM2 machine with a finite type KKK of stack indices and decidable equality on KKK, designated input and output indices k0,k1k_0,k_1k0​,k1​, stack-symbol types Γk\Gamma_kΓk​, a finite type Λ\LambdaΛ of program labels with a main label, a finite type σ\sigmaσ of control states with an initial state, a finite input alphabet Γk0\Gamma_{k_0}Γk0​​, and a statement m(ℓ)m(\ell)m(ℓ) for each label ℓ∈Λ\ell\in\Lambdaℓ∈Λ. No finiteness of Γk\Gamma_kΓk​ for other kkk is assumed. A tagged symbol (k,a)(k,a)(k,a) has k∈Kk\in Kk∈K and a∈Γka\in\Gamma_ka∈Γk​; tags from different stacks remain distinct. For a statement qqq, its set U(q)U(q)U(q) of syntactically possible pushed tagged symbols is recursively defined: a push onto kkk with symbol function f:σ→Γkf:\sigma\to\Gamma_kf:σ→Γk​ and continuation q0q_0q0​ contributes {(k,f(v)):v∈σ}∪U(q0)\{(k,f(v)):v\in\sigma\}\cup U(q_0){(k,f(v)):v∈σ}∪U(q0​); a peek, pop, or control-state load contributes only its continuation’s set; a conditional branch contributes the union of both branch sets; a jump to a program label and a halt contribute the empty set. Thus both branch bodies and all control states are counted, regardless of reachability, while a jump does not recursively inspect its target. Put UM={(k0,a):a∈Γk0}∪⋃ℓ∈ΛU(m(ℓ))U_M=\{(k_0,a):a\in\Gamma_{k_0}\}\cup\bigcup_{\ell\in\Lambda}U(m(\ell))UM​={(k0​,a):a∈Γk0​​}∪⋃ℓ∈Λ​U(m(ℓ)), including every input-alphabet symbol and all syntactically possible pushes from every labeled statement.

View graph

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paper
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me