Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Proposition 4.1 (i), p. 212 — every K ⊆ L_m(𝒢) is marked by a complete supervisor with L(𝒮/𝒢) = L(𝒢)

Proved
RamadgeWonham.Synthesis.prop_4_1_i

by mikedeng1 · Sep 27, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

discrete-event-systemsp2o-batch-p200ap2o-gran-per-chapterp2o-plan-paperp2o-v1supervisory-control

Let G\mathcal GG be a generator over a finite alphabet Σ\SigmaΣ with controllable events Σc\Sigma_cΣc​, and assume G\mathcal GG is trim in the sense L(G)=Lˉm(G)L(\mathcal G) = \bar L_m(\mathcal G)L(G)=Lˉm​(G). For each sublanguage K⊆Lm(G)K \subseteq L_m(\mathcal G)K⊆Lm​(G) there is a complete supervisor S\mathcal SS (with accessible automaton) such that

L(S/G)=L(G),Lm(S/G)=K.L(\mathcal S/\mathcal G) = L(\mathcal G), \qquad L_m(\mathcal S/\mathcal G) = K.L(S/G)=L(G),Lm​(S/G)=K.

This expresses that marking is independent of control: any set of plant tasks can be recorded without restricting the plant at all.

Formalization Note. The standing assumptions of the paper (finite alphabet, L(G)=Lˉm(G)L(\mathcal G) = \bar L_m(\mathcal G)L(G)=Lˉm​(G) from §4, accessible supervisor automaton) are explicit hypotheses and conjuncts.

Preamble
import Mathlib
import Definitions.Def_RamadgeWonham_Shared_Supervisor
Formal statement
namespace RamadgeWonham.Synthesis

/-- Ramadge–Wonham 1987, Proposition 4.1 (i), p. 212. Standing assumptions: `Σ` finite (p. 207),
`𝒢` trim, `L(𝒢) = L̄_m(𝒢)` (§4, p. 212), supervisors accessible (p. 210). For each sublanguage
`K ⊆ L_m(𝒢)` there is a complete supervisor `𝒮` with `L(𝒮/𝒢) = L(𝒢)` and `L_m(𝒮/𝒢) = K`. -/
theorem prop_4_1_i {α : Type} [Fintype α] (G : Shared.Generator α) (Ec : Set α)
    (hG : G.L = Shared.pre G.Lm) (K : Set (List α)) (hK : K ⊆ G.Lm) :
    ∃ 𝒮 : Shared.Supervisor α Ec, 𝒮.S.Accessible ∧ Shared.Complete G 𝒮 ∧
      Shared.Lsup G 𝒮 = G.L ∧ Shared.Lmsup G 𝒮 = K := by sorry

end RamadgeWonham.Synthesis
Source
Ramadge and Wonham, Supervisory Control of a Class of Discrete Event Processes, SIAM J. Control Optim. 25(1), 1987, p. 212, Proposition 4.1 (i)
Human review
  • Endorsed by Shuze Chen · Sep 27, 2026

    Confirmed by the moderator at approval.

  • Endorsed by mikedeng1 · Sep 27, 2026

    Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).

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