Basics.v

(**` * Basics: Functional Programming in Coq *)

(* REMINDER:

          #####################################################
          ###  PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE SOLUTIONS PUBLICLY  ###
          #####################################################

   (See the [Preface] for why.) 

*)

(* [Admitted] is Coq's "escape hatch" that says accept this definition
   without proof.  We use it to mark the 'holes' in the development
   that should be completed as part of your homework exercises.  In
   practice, [Admitted] is useful when you're incrementally developing
   large proofs. *)
Definition admit {T: Type} : T.  Admitted.

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Introduction *)

(** The functional programming style brings programming closer to
    simple, everyday mathematics: If a procedure or method has no side
    effects, then (ignoring efficiency) all we need to understand
    about it is how it maps inputs to outputs -- that is, we can think
    of it as just a concrete method for computing a mathematical
    function.  This is one sense of the word "functional" in
    "functional programming."  The direct connection between programs
    and simple mathematical objects supports both formal correctness
    proofs and sound informal reasoning about program behavior.

    The other sense in which functional programming is "functional" is
    that it emphasizes the use of functions (or methods) as
    _first-class_ values -- i.e., values that can be passed as
    arguments to other functions, returned as results, included in
    data structures, etc.  The recognition that functions can be
    treated as data in this way enables a host of useful and powerful
    idioms.

    Other common features of functional languages include _algebraic
    data types_ and _pattern matching_, which make it easy to
    construct and manipulate rich data structures, and sophisticated
    _polymorphic type systems_ supporting abstraction and code reuse.
    Coq shares all of these features.

    The first half of this chapter introduces the most essential
    elements of Coq's functional programming language.  The second
    half introduces some basic _tactics_ that can be used to prove
    simple properties of Coq programs. *)

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Enumerated Types *)

(** One unusual aspect of Coq is that its set of built-in
    features is _extremely_ small.  For example, instead of providing
    the usual palette of atomic data types (booleans, integers,
    strings, etc.), Coq offers a powerful mechanism for defining new
    data types from scratch, from which all these familiar types arise
    as instances.

    Naturally, the Coq distribution comes with an extensive standard
    library providing definitions of booleans, numbers, and many
    common data structures like lists and hash tables.  But there is
    nothing magic or primitive about these library definitions.  To
    illustrate this, we will explicitly recapitulate all the
    definitions we need in this course, rather than just getting them
    implicitly from the library.

    To see how this definition mechanism works, let's start with a
    very simple example. *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Days of the Week *)

(** The following declaration tells Coq that we are defining
    a new set of data values -- a _type_. *)

Inductive day : Type :=
  | monday : day
  | tuesday : day
  | wednesday : day
  | thursday : day
  | friday : day
  | saturday : day
  | sunday : day.

(** The type is called [day], and its members are [monday],
    [tuesday], etc.  The second and following lines of the definition
    can be read "[monday] is a [day], [tuesday] is a [day], etc."

    Having defined [day], we can write functions that operate on
    days. *)

Definition next_weekday (d:day) : day :=
  match d with
  | monday    => tuesday
  | tuesday   => wednesday
  | wednesday => thursday
  | thursday  => friday
  | friday    => monday
  | saturday  => monday
  | sunday    => monday
  end.

(** One thing to note is that the argument and return types of
    this function are explicitly declared.  Like most functional
    programming languages, Coq can often figure out these types for
    itself when they are not given explicitly -- i.e., it performs
    _type inference_ -- but we'll include them to make reading
    easier. *)

(** Having defined a function, we should check that it works on
    some examples.  There are actually three different ways to do this
    in Coq.

    First, we can use the command [Compute] to evaluate a compound
    expression involving [next_weekday]. *)

Compute (next_weekday friday).
(* ==> monday : day *)

Compute (next_weekday (next_weekday saturday)).
(* ==> tuesday : day *)

(** (We show Coq's responses in comments, but, if you have a
    computer handy, this would be an excellent moment to fire up the
    Coq interpreter under your favorite IDE -- either CoqIde or Proof
    General -- and try this for yourself.  Load this file, [Basics.v],
    from the book's accompanying Coq sources, find the above example,
    submit it to Coq, and observe the result.)

    Second, we can record what we _expect_ the result to be in the
    form of a Coq example: *)

Example test_next_weekday:
  (next_weekday (next_weekday saturday)) = tuesday.

(** This declaration does two things: it makes an
    assertion (that the second weekday after [saturday] is [tuesday]),
    and it gives the assertion a name that can be used to refer to it
    later.

    Having made the assertion, we can also ask Coq to verify it, like
    this: *)

Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** The details are not important for now (we'll come back to
    them in a bit), but essentially this can be read as "The assertion
    we've just made can be proved by observing that both sides of the
    equality evaluate to the same thing, after some simplification."

    Third, we can ask Coq to _extract_, from our [Definition], a
    program in some other, more conventional, programming
    language (OCaml, Scheme, or Haskell) with a high-performance
    compiler.  This facility is very interesting, since it gives us a
    way to construct _fully certified_ programs in mainstream
    languages.  Indeed, this is one of the main uses for which Coq was
    developed.  We'll come back to this topic in later chapters. *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Booleans *)

(** In a similar way, we can define the standard type [bool] of
    booleans, with members [true] and [false]. *)

Inductive bool : Type :=
  | true : bool
  | false : bool.

(** Although we are rolling our own booleans here for the sake
    of building up everything from scratch, Coq does, of course,
    provide a default implementation of the booleans in its standard
    library, together with a multitude of useful functions and
    lemmas.  (Take a look at [Coq.Init.Datatypes] in the Coq library
    documentation if you're interested.)  Whenever possible, we'll
    name our own definitions and theorems so that they exactly
    coincide with the ones in the standard library.

    Functions over booleans can be defined in the same way as
    above: *)

Definition negb (b:bool) : bool :=
  match b with
  | true => false
  | false => true
  end.

Definition andb (b1:bool) (b2:bool) : bool :=
  match b1 with
  | true => b2
  | false => false
  end.

Definition orb (b1:bool) (b2:bool) : bool :=
  match b1 with
  | true => true
  | false => b2
  end.

(** The last two illustrate Coq's syntax for multi-argument
    function definitions.  The corresponding multi-argument
    application syntax is illustrated by the following four "unit
    tests," which constitute a complete specification -- a truth
    table -- for the [orb] function: *)

Example test_orb1:  (orb true  false) = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.
Example test_orb2:  (orb false false) = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.
Example test_orb3:  (orb false true)  = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.
Example test_orb4:  (orb true  true)  = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** We can also introduce some familiar syntax for the boolean
    operations we have just defined. The [Infix] command defines new,
    infix notation for an existing definition. *)

Infix "&&" := andb.
Infix "||" := orb.

Example test_orb5:  false || false || true = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.

(** _A note on notation_: In [.v] files, we use square brackets to
    delimit fragments of Coq code within comments; this convention,
    also used by the [coqdoc] documentation tool, keeps them visually
    separate from the surrounding text.  In the html version of the
    files, these pieces of text appear in a [different font].

    The special phrases [Admitted] and [admit] can be used as a
    placeholder for an incomplete definition or proof.  We'll use them
    in exercises, to indicate the parts that we're leaving for you --
    i.e., your job is to replace [admit] or [Admitted] with real
    definitions or proofs. *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star (nandb)  *)
(** Remove [admit] and complete the definition of the following
    function; then make sure that the [Example] assertions below can
    each be verified by Coq.  (Remove "[Admitted.]" and fill in each
    proof, following the model of the [orb] tests above.) The function
    should return [true] if either or both of its inputs are
    [false]. *)

Definition nandb (b1:bool) (b2:bool) : bool :=
  match b2 with
  | true => negb b1
  | false => true
  end.

Example test_nandb1:               (nandb true false) = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_nandb2:               (nandb false false) = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_nandb3:               (nandb false true) = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_nandb4:               (nandb true true) = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star (andb3)  *)
(** Do the same for the [andb3] function below. This function should
    return [true] when all of its inputs are [true], and [false]
    otherwise. *)

Definition andb3 (b1:bool) (b2:bool) (b3:bool) : bool :=
  match b1 with
  |true => andb b2 b3
  |false => false
  end.

Example test_andb31:                 (andb3 true true true) = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_andb32:                 (andb3 false true true) = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_andb33:                 (andb3 true false true) = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_andb34:                 (andb3 true true false) = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
(** [] *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Function Types *)

(** Every expression in Coq has a type, describing what sort of
    thing it computes. The [Check] command asks Coq to print the type
    of an expression. *)

(** For example, the type of [negb true] is [bool]. *)

Check true.
(* ===> true : bool *)
Check (negb true).
(* ===> negb true : bool *)

(** Functions like [negb] itself are also data values, just like
    [true] and [false].  Their types are called _function types_, and
    they are written with arrows. *)

Check negb.
(* ===> negb : bool -> bool *)

(** The type of [negb], written [bool -> bool] and pronounced
    "[bool] arrow [bool]," can be read, "Given an input of type
    [bool], this function produces an output of type [bool]."
    Similarly, the type of [andb], written [bool -> bool -> bool], can
    be read, "Given two inputs, both of type [bool], this function
    produces an output of type [bool]." *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Modules *)

(** Coq provides a _module system_, to aid in organizing large
    developments.  In this course we won't need most of its features,
    but one is useful: If we enclose a collection of declarations
    between [Module X] and [End X] markers, then, in the remainder of
    the file after the [End], these definitions are referred to by
    names like [X.foo] instead of just [foo].  Here, we use this
    feature to introduce the definition of the type [nat] in an inner
    module so that it does not interfere with the one from the
    standard library, which comes with a bit of special notational
    magic.  *)

Module Playground1.

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Numbers *)

(** The types we have defined so far are examples of "enumerated
    types": their definitions explicitly enumerate a finite set of
    elements.  A more interesting way of defining a type is to give a
    collection of _inductive rules_ describing its elements.  For
    example, we can define the natural numbers as follows: *)

Inductive nat : Type :=
  | O : nat
  | S : nat -> nat.

(** The clauses of this definition can be read:
      - [O] is a natural number (note that this is the letter "[O],"
        not the numeral "[0]").
      - [S] is a "constructor" that takes a natural number and yields
        another one -- that is, if [n] is a natural number, then [S n]
        is too.

    Let's look at this in a little more detail.

    Every inductively defined set ([day], [nat], [bool], etc.) is
    actually a set of _expressions_.  The definition of [nat] says how
    expressions in the set [nat] can be constructed:

    - the expression [O] belongs to the set [nat];
    - if [n] is an expression belonging to the set [nat], then [S n]
      is also an expression belonging to the set [nat]; and
    - expressions formed in these two ways are the only ones belonging
      to the set [nat].

    The same rules apply for our definitions of [day] and [bool]. The
    annotations we used for their constructors are analogous to the
    one for the [O] constructor, indicating that they don't take any
    arguments.

    These three conditions are the precise force of the [Inductive]
    declaration.  They imply that the expression [O], the expression
    [S O], the expression [S (S O)], the expression [S (S (S O))], and
    so on all belong to the set [nat], while other expressions like
    [true], [andb true false], and [S (S false)] do not.

    We can write simple functions that pattern match on natural
    numbers just as we did above -- for example, the predecessor
    function: *)

Definition pred (n : nat) : nat :=
  match n with
    | O => O
    | S n' => n'
  end.

(** The second branch can be read: "if [n] has the form [S n']
    for some [n'], then return [n']."  *)

End Playground1.

Definition minustwo (n : nat) : nat :=
  match n with
    | O => O
    | S O => O
    | S (S n') => n'
  end.

(** Because natural numbers are such a pervasive form of data,
    Coq provides a tiny bit of built-in magic for parsing and printing
    them: ordinary arabic numerals can be used as an alternative to
    the "unary" notation defined by the constructors [S] and [O].  Coq
    prints numbers in arabic form by default: *)

Check (S (S (S (S O)))).
  (* ===> 4 : nat *)
Compute (minustwo 4).
  (* ===> 2 : nat *)

(** The constructor [S] has the type [nat -> nat], just like the
    functions [minustwo] and [pred]: *)

Check S.
Check pred.
Check minustwo.

(** These are all things that can be applied to a number to yield a
    number.  However, there is a fundamental difference between the
    first one and the other two: functions like [pred] and [minustwo]
    come with _computation rules_ -- e.g., the definition of [pred]
    says that [pred 2] can be simplified to [1] -- while the
    definition of [S] has no such behavior attached.  Although it is
    like a function in the sense that it can be applied to an
    argument, it does not _do_ anything at all!

    For most function definitions over numbers, just pattern matching
    is not enough: we also need recursion.  For example, to check that
    a number [n] is even, we may need to recursively check whether
    [n-2] is even.  To write such functions, we use the keyword
    [Fixpoint]. *)

Fixpoint evenb (n:nat) : bool :=
  match n with
  | O        => true
  | S O      => false
  | S (S n') => evenb n'
  end.

(** We can define [oddb] by a similar [Fixpoint] declaration, but here
    is a simpler definition that is a bit easier to work with: *)

Definition oddb (n:nat) : bool   :=   negb (evenb n).

Example test_oddb1:    oddb 1 = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.
Example test_oddb2:    oddb 4 = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** (You will notice if you step through these proofs that
    [simpl] actually has no effect on the goal -- all of the work is
    done by [reflexivity].  We'll see more about why that is shortly.)

    Naturally, we can also define multi-argument functions by
    recursion.  *)

Module Playground2.

Fixpoint plus (n : nat) (m : nat) : nat :=
  match n with
    | O => m
    | S n' => S (plus n' m)
  end.

(** Adding three to two now gives us five, as we'd expect. *)

Compute (plus 3 2).

(** The simplification that Coq performs to reach this conclusion can
    be visualized as follows: *)

(*  [plus (S (S (S O))) (S (S O))]
==> [S (plus (S (S O)) (S (S O)))]
      by the second clause of the [match]
==> [S (S (plus (S O) (S (S O))))]
      by the second clause of the [match]
==> [S (S (S (plus O (S (S O)))))]
      by the second clause of the [match]
==> [S (S (S (S (S O))))]
      by the first clause of the [match]
*)

(** As a notational convenience, if two or more arguments have
    the same type, they can be written together.  In the following
    definition, [(n m : nat)] means just the same as if we had written
    [(n : nat) (m : nat)]. *)

Fixpoint mult (n m : nat) : nat :=
  match n with
    | O => O
    | S n' => plus m (mult n' m)
  end.

Example test_mult1: (mult 3 3) = 9.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** You can match two expressions at once by putting a comma
    between them: *)

Fixpoint minus (n m:nat) : nat :=
  match n, m with
  | O   , _    => O
  | S _ , O    => n
  | S n', S m' => minus n' m'
  end.

(** The _ in the first line is a _wildcard pattern_.  Writing _ in a
    pattern is the same as writing some variable that doesn't get used
    on the right-hand side.  This avoids the need to invent a bogus
    variable name. *)

End Playground2.

Fixpoint exp (base power : nat) : nat :=
  match power with
    | O => S O
    | S p => mult base (exp base p)
  end.

(** **** Exercise: 1 star (factorial)  *)
(** Recall the standard mathematical factorial function:

       factorial(0)  =  1
       factorial(n)  =  n * factorial(n-1)     (if n>0)

    Translate this into Coq. *)

Fixpoint factorial (n:nat) : nat :=
  match n with
  | O => 1
  | S p => mult n (factorial p)
  end. 

Example test_factorial1:          (factorial 3) = 6.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.

Example test_factorial2:          (factorial 5) = (mult 10 12).
Proof. simpl. reflexivity. Qed.
(** [] *)

(** We can make numerical expressions a little easier to read and
    write by introducing _notations_ for addition, multiplication, and
    subtraction. *)

Notation "x + y" := (plus x y)
                       (at level 50, left associativity)
                       : nat_scope.
Notation "x - y" := (minus x y)
                       (at level 50, left associativity)
                       : nat_scope.
Notation "x * y" := (mult x y)
                       (at level 40, left associativity)
                       : nat_scope.

Check ((0 + 1) + 1).

(** (The [level], [associativity], and [nat_scope] annotations
    control how these notations are treated by Coq's parser.  The
    details are not important, but interested readers can refer to the
    optional "More on Notation" section at the end of this chapter.)

    Note that these do not change the definitions we've already made:
    they are simply instructions to the Coq parser to accept [x + y]
    in place of [plus x y] and, conversely, to the Coq pretty-printer
    to display [plus x y] as [x + y].

    When we say that Coq comes with nothing built-in, we really mean
    it: even equality testing for numbers is a user-defined
    operation! *)

(** The [beq_nat] function tests [nat]ural numbers for [eq]uality,
    yielding a [b]oolean.  Note the use of nested [match]es (we could
    also have used a simultaneous match, as we did in [minus].)  *)

Fixpoint beq_nat (n m : nat) : bool :=
  match n with
  | O => match m with
         | O => true
         | S m' => false
         end
  | S n' => match m with
            | O => false
            | S m' => beq_nat n' m'
            end
  end.

(** The [leb] function tests whether its first argument is less than or
  equal to its second argument, yielding a boolean. *)

Fixpoint leb (n m : nat) : bool :=
  match n with
  | O => true
  | S n' =>
      match m with
      | O => false
      | S m' => leb n' m'
      end
  end.

Example test_leb1:             (leb 2 2) = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.
Example test_leb2:             (leb 2 4) = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.
Example test_leb3:             (leb 4 2) = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** **** Exercise: 1 star (blt_nat)  *)
(** The [blt_nat] function tests [nat]ural numbers for [l]ess-[t]han,
    yielding a [b]oolean.  Instead of making up a new [Fixpoint] for
    this one, define it in terms of a previously defined function. *)

Definition blt_nat (n m : nat) : bool :=
  (leb n m) && (negb (beq_nat n m)).

Example test_blt_nat1:             (blt_nat 2 2) = false.
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_blt_nat2:             (blt_nat 2 4) = true.
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.
Example test_blt_nat3:             (blt_nat 4 2) = false.
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.
(** [] *)

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Proof by Simplification *)

(** Now that we've defined a few datatypes and functions, let's
    turn to stating and proving properties of their behavior.
    Actually, we've already started doing this: each [Example] in the
    previous sections makes a precise claim about the behavior of some
    function on some particular inputs.  The proofs of these claims
    were always the same: use [simpl] to simplify both sides of the
    equation, then use [reflexivity] to check that both sides contain
    identical values.

    The same sort of "proof by simplification" can be used to prove
    more interesting properties as well.  For example, the fact that
    [0] is a "neutral element" for [+] on the left can be proved just
    by observing that [0 + n] reduces to [n] no matter what [n] is, a
    fact that can be read directly off the definition of [plus].*)

Theorem plus_O_n : forall n : nat, 0 + n = n.
Proof.
  intros n. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** (You may notice that the above statement looks different in
    the [.v] file in your IDE than it does in the HTML rendition in
    your browser, if you are viewing both. In [.v] files, we write the
    [forall] universal quantifier using the reserved identifier
    "forall."  When the [.v] files are converted to HTML, this gets
    transformed into an upside-down-A symbol.) *)

(** This is a good place to mention that [reflexivity] is a bit
    more powerful than we have admitted. In the examples we have seen,
    the calls to [simpl] were actually not needed, because
    [reflexivity] can perform some simplification automatically when
    checking that two sides are equal; [simpl] was just added so that
    we could see the intermediate state -- after simplification but
    before finishing the proof.  Here is a shorter proof of the
    theorem: *)

Theorem plus_O_n' : forall n : nat, 0 + n = n.
Proof.
  intros n. reflexivity. Qed.

(** Moreover, it will be useful later to know that [reflexivity]
    does somewhat _more_ simplification than [simpl] does -- for
    example, it tries "unfolding" defined terms, replacing them with
    their right-hand sides.  The reason for this difference is that,
    if reflexivity succeeds, the whole goal is finished and we don't
    need to look at whatever expanded expressions [reflexivity] has
    created by all this simplification and unfolding; by contrast,
    [simpl] is used in situations where we may have to read and
    understand the new goal that it creates, so we would not want it
    blindly expanding definitions and leaving the goal in a messy
    state. *)

(** The form of the theorem we just stated and its proof are
    almost exactly the same as the simpler examples we saw earlier;
    there are just a few differences.

    First, we've used the keyword [Theorem] instead of [Example].
    This difference is purely a matter of style; the keywords
    [Example] and [Theorem] (and a few others, including [Lemma],
    [Fact], and [Remark]) mean exactly the same thing to Coq.

    Second, we've added the quantifier [forall n:nat], so that our
    theorem talks about _all_ natural numbers [n].  In order to prove
    theorems of this form, we need to to be able to reason by
    _assuming_ the existence of an arbitrary natural number [n].  This
    is achieved in the proof by [intros n], which moves the quantifier
    from the goal to a _context_ of current assumptions. In effect, we
    start the proof by saying "Suppose [n] is some arbitrary
    number..."

    The keywords [intros], [simpl], and [reflexivity] are examples of
    _tactics_.  A tactic is a command that is used between [Proof] and
    [Qed] to guide the process of checking some claim we are making.
    We will see several more tactics in the rest of this chapter and
    yet more in future chapters.

    Other similar theorems can be proved with the same pattern. *)

Theorem plus_1_l : forall n:nat, 1 + n = S n.
Proof.
  intros n. reflexivity.  Qed.

Theorem mult_0_l : forall n:nat, 0 * n = 0.
Proof.
  intros n. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** The [_l] suffix in the names of these theorems is
    pronounced "on the left." *)

(** It is worth stepping through these proofs to observe how the
    context and the goal change. *)
(** You may want to add calls to [simpl] before [reflexivity] to
    see the simplifications that Coq performs on the terms before
    checking that they are equal.

    Although simplification is powerful enough to prove some fairly
    general facts, there are many statements that cannot be handled by
    simplification alone.  For instance, we cannot use it to prove
    that [0] is also a neutral element for [+] _on the right_. *)

Theorem plus_n_O : forall n, n = n + 0.
Proof.
  intros n. simpl. (* Doesn't do anything! *)

(** (Can you explain why this happens?  Step through both proofs
    with Coq and notice how the goal and context change.)

    When stuck in the middle of a proof, we can use the [Abort]
    command to give up on it for the moment. *)

Abort.

(** The next chapter will introduce _induction_, a powerful
    technique that can be used for proving this goal.  For the moment,
    though, let's look at a few more simple tactics. *)

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Proof by Rewriting *)

(** This theorem is a bit more interesting than the others we've
    seen: *)

Theorem plus_id_example : forall n m:nat,
  n = m ->
  n + n = m + m.

(** Instead of making a universal claim about all numbers [n] and [m],
    it talks about a more specialized property that only holds when [n
    = m].  The arrow symbol is pronounced "implies."

    As before, we need to be able to reason by assuming the existence
    of some numbers [n] and [m].  We also need to assume the hypothesis
    [n = m]. The [intros] tactic will serve to move all three of these
    from the goal into assumptions in the current context.

    Since [n] and [m] are arbitrary numbers, we can't just use
    simplification to prove this theorem.  Instead, we prove it by
    observing that, if we are assuming [n = m], then we can replace
    [n] with [m] in the goal statement and obtain an equality with the
    same expression on both sides.  The tactic that tells Coq to
    perform this replacement is called [rewrite]. *)

Proof.
  (* move both quantifiers into the context: *)
  intros n m.
  (* move the hypothesis into the context: *)
  intros H.
  (* rewrite the goal using the hypothesis: *)
  rewrite -> H.
  reflexivity.  Qed.

(** The first line of the proof moves the universally quantified
    variables [n] and [m] into the context.  The second moves the
    hypothesis [n = m] into the context and gives it the name [H].
    The third tells Coq to rewrite the current goal ([n + n = m + m])
    by replacing the left side of the equality hypothesis [H] with the
    right side.

    (The arrow symbol in the [rewrite] has nothing to do with
    implication: it tells Coq to apply the rewrite from left to right.
    To rewrite from right to left, you can use [rewrite <-].  Try
    making this change in the above proof and see what difference it
    makes.) *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star (plus_id_exercise)  *)
(** Remove "[Admitted.]" and fill in the proof. *)

Theorem plus_id_exercise : forall n m o : nat,
  n = m -> m = o -> n + m = m + o.
Proof.
  intros n m o. intros H1 H2.
  rewrite -> H1. rewrite -> H2. reflexivity.
Qed.
(** [] *)

(** The [Admitted] command tells Coq that we want to skip trying
    to prove this theorem and just accept it as a given.  This can be
    useful for developing longer proofs, since we can state subsidiary
    lemmas that we believe will be useful for making some larger
    argument, use [Admitted] to accept them on faith for the moment,
    and continue working on the main argument until we are sure it
    makes sense; then we can go back and fill in the proofs we
    skipped.  Be careful, though: every time you say [Admitted] (or
    [admit]) you are leaving a door open for total nonsense to enter
    Coq's nice, rigorous, formally checked world! *)

(** We can also use the [rewrite] tactic with a previously proved
    theorem instead of a hypothesis from the context. If the statement
    of the previously proved theorem involves quantified variables,
    as in the example below, Coq tries to instantiate them 
    by matching with the current goal. *)   

Theorem mult_0_plus : forall n m : nat,
  (0 + n) * m = n * m.
Proof.
  intros n m.
  rewrite -> plus_O_n.
  reflexivity.  Qed.

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars (mult_S_1)  *)
Theorem mult_S_1 : forall n m : nat,
  m = S n ->
  m * (1 + n) = m * m.
Proof.
  intros m n H. simpl. rewrite -> H. reflexivity.
Qed.
(** [] *)


(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Proof by Case Analysis *)

(** Of course, not everything can be proved by simple
    calculation and rewriting: In general, unknown, hypothetical
    values (arbitrary numbers, booleans, lists, etc.) can block
    simplification.  For example, if we try to prove the following
    fact using the [simpl] tactic as above, we get stuck. *)

Theorem plus_1_neq_0_firsttry : forall n : nat,
  beq_nat (n + 1) 0 = false.
Proof.
  intros n.
  simpl.  (* does nothing! *)
Abort.

(** The reason for this is that the definitions of both
    [beq_nat] and [+] begin by performing a [match] on their first
    argument.  But here, the first argument to [+] is the unknown
    number [n] and the argument to [beq_nat] is the compound
    expression [n + 1]; neither can be simplified.

    To make progress, we need to consider the possible forms of [n]
    separately.  If [n] is [O], then we can calculate the final result
    of [beq_nat (n + 1) 0] and check that it is, indeed, [false].  And
    if [n = S n'] for some [n'], then, although we don't know exactly
    what number [n + 1] yields, we can calculate that, at least, it
    will begin with one [S], and this is enough to calculate that,
    again, [beq_nat (n + 1) 0] will yield [false].

    The tactic that tells Coq to consider, separately, the cases where
    [n = O] and where [n = S n'] is called [destruct]. *)

Theorem plus_1_neq_0 : forall n : nat,
  beq_nat (n + 1) 0 = false.
Proof.
  intros n. destruct n as [| n'].
  - reflexivity.
  - reflexivity.   Qed.

(** The [destruct] generates _two_ subgoals, which we must then
    prove, separately, in order to get Coq to accept the theorem. The
    annotation "[as [| n']]" is called an _intro pattern_.  It tells
    Coq what variable names to introduce in each subgoal.  In general,
    what goes between the square brackets is a _list of lists_ of
    names, separated by [|].  In this case, the first component is
    empty, since the [O] constructor is nullary (it doesn't have any
    arguments).  The second component gives a single name, [n'], since
    [S] is a unary constructor.

    The [-] signs on the second and third lines are called _bullets_,
    and they mark the parts of the proof that correspond to each
    generated subgoal.  The proof script that comes after a bullet is
    the entire proof for a subgoal.  In this example, each of the
    subgoals is easily proved by a single use of [reflexivity], which
    itself performs some simplification -- e.g., the first one
    simplifies [beq_nat (S n' + 1) 0] to [false] by first rewriting
    [(S n' + 1)] to [S (n' + 1)], then unfolding [beq_nat], and then
    simplifying the [match].

    Marking cases with bullets is entirely optional: if bullets are
    not present, Coq simply asks you to prove each subgoal in
    sequence, one at a time. But it is a good idea to use bullets.
    For one thing, they make the structure of a proof apparent, making
    it more readable. Also, bullets instruct Coq to ensure that a
    subgoal is complete before trying to verify the next one,
    preventing proofs for different subgoals from getting mixed
    up. These issues become especially important in large
    developments, where fragile proofs lead to long debugging
    sessions.

    There are no hard and fast rules for how proofs should be
    formatted in Coq -- in particular, where lines should be broken
    and how sections of the proof should be indented to indicate their
    nested structure.  However, if the places where multiple subgoals
    are generated are marked with explicit bullets at the beginning of
    lines, then the proof will be readable almost no matter what
    choices are made about other aspects of layout.

    This is also a good place to mention one other piece of somewhat
    obvious advice about line lengths.  Beginning Coq users sometimes
    tend to the extremes, either writing each tactic on its own line
    or writing entire proofs on one line.  Good style lies somewhere
    in the middle.  One reasonable convention is to limit yourself to
    80-character lines.

    The [destruct] tactic can be used with any inductively defined
    datatype.  For example, we use it next to prove that boolean
    negation is involutive -- i.e., that negation is its own
    inverse. *)

Theorem negb_involutive : forall b : bool,
  negb (negb b) = b.
Proof.
  intros b. destruct b.
  - reflexivity.
  - reflexivity.  Qed.

(** Note that the [destruct] here has no [as] clause because
    none of the subcases of the [destruct] need to bind any variables,
    so there is no need to specify any names.  (We could also have
    written [as [|]], or [as []].)  In fact, we can omit the [as]
    clause from _any_ [destruct] and Coq will fill in variable names
    automatically.  This is generally considered bad style, since Coq
    often makes confusing choices of names when left to its own
    devices.

    It is sometimes useful to invoke [destruct] inside a subgoal,
    generating yet more proof obligations. In this case, we use
    different kinds of bullets to mark goals on different "levels."
    For example: *)

Theorem andb_commutative : forall b c, andb b c = andb c b.
Proof.
  intros b c. destruct b.
  - destruct c.
    + reflexivity.
    + reflexivity.
  - destruct c.
    + reflexivity.
    + reflexivity.
Qed.

(** Each pair of calls to [reflexivity] corresponds to the
    subgoals that were generated after the execution of the [destruct
    c] line right above it.  Besides [-] and [+], Coq proofs can also
    use [*] (asterisk) as a third kind of bullet. If we ever encounter
    a proof that generates more than three levels of subgoals, we can
    also enclose individual subgoals in curly braces ([{ ... }]): *)

Theorem andb_commutative' : forall b c, andb b c = andb c b.
Proof.
  intros b c. destruct b.
  { destruct c.
    { reflexivity. }
    { reflexivity. } }
  { destruct c.
    { reflexivity. }
    { reflexivity. } }
Qed.

(** Since curly braces mark both the beginning and the end of a
    proof, they can be used for multiple subgoal levels, as this
    example shows. Furthermore, curly braces allow us to reuse the
    same bullet shapes at multiple levels in a proof: *)

Theorem andb3_exchange :
  forall b c d, andb (andb b c) d = andb (andb b d) c.
Proof.
  intros b c d. destruct b.
  - destruct c.
    { destruct d.
      - reflexivity.
      - reflexivity. }
    { destruct d.
      - reflexivity.
      - reflexivity. }
  - destruct c.
    { destruct d.
      - reflexivity.
      - reflexivity. }
    { destruct d.
      - reflexivity.
      - reflexivity. }
Qed.

(** Before closing the chapter, let's mention one final
    convenience.  As you may have noticed, many proofs perform case
    analysis on a variable right after introducing it:

       intros x y. destruct y as [|y].

    This pattern is so common that Coq provides a shorthand for it: we
    can perform case analysis on a variable when introducing it by
    using an intro pattern instead of a variable name. For instance,
    here is a shorter proof of the [plus_1_neq_0] theorem above. *)

Theorem plus_1_neq_0' : forall n : nat,
  beq_nat (n + 1) 0 = false.
Proof.
  intros [|n].
  - reflexivity.
  - reflexivity.  Qed.

(** If there are no arguments to name, we can just write [[]]. *)

Theorem andb_commutative'' :
  forall b c, andb b c = andb c b.
Proof.
  intros [] [].
  - reflexivity.
  - reflexivity.
  - reflexivity.
  - reflexivity.
Qed.

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars (andb_true_elim2)  *)
(** Prove the following claim, marking cases (and subcases) with
    bullets when you use [destruct]. *)

Theorem andb_true_elim2 : forall b c : bool,
  andb b c = true -> c = true.
Proof.
  intros [] [].
  - simpl. reflexivity.
  - simpl. intros H. rewrite -> H. reflexivity.
  - simpl. intros H. reflexivity.
  - simpl. intros. rewrite -> H. reflexivity.
Qed.  
(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star (zero_nbeq_plus_1)  *)
Theorem zero_nbeq_plus_1 : forall n : nat,
  beq_nat 0 (n + 1) = false.
Proof.
  destruct n. 
  - simpl. reflexivity.
  - simpl. reflexivity.
Qed. 
(** [] *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** More on Notation (Optional) *)

(** (In general, sections marked Optional are not needed to follow the
    rest of the book, except possibly other Optional sections.  On a
    first reading, you might want to skim these sections so that you
    know what's there for future reference.)

    Recall the notation definitions for infix plus and times: *)

Notation "x + y" := (plus x y)
                       (at level 50, left associativity)
                       : nat_scope.
Notation "x * y" := (mult x y)
                       (at level 40, left associativity)
                       : nat_scope.

(** For each notation symbol in Coq, we can specify its _precedence
    level_ and its _associativity_.  The precedence level [n] is
    specified by writing [at level n]; this helps Coq parse compound
    expressions.  The associativity setting helps to disambiguate
    expressions containing multiple occurrences of the same
    symbol. For example, the parameters specified above for [+] and
    [*] say that the expression [1+2*3*4] is shorthand for
    [(1+((2*3)*4))]. Coq uses precedence levels from 0 to 100, and
    _left_, _right_, or _no_ associativity.  We will see more examples
    of this later, e.g., in the [Lists]
    chapter.

    Each notation symbol is also associated with a _notation scope_.
    Coq tries to guess what scope is meant from context, so when it
    sees [S(O*O)] it guesses [nat_scope], but when it sees the
    cartesian product (tuple) type [bool*bool] it guesses
    [type_scope].  Occasionally, it is necessary to help it out with
    percent-notation by writing [(x*y)%nat], and sometimes in what Coq
    prints it will use [%nat] to indicate what scope a notation is in.

    Notation scopes also apply to numeral notation ([3], [4], [5],
    etc.), so you may sometimes see [0%nat], which means [O] (the
    natural number [0] that we're using in this chapter), or [0%Z],
    which means the Integer zero (which comes from a different part of
    the standard library). *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Fixpoints and Structural Recursion (Optional) *)

(** Here is a copy of the definition of addition: *)

Fixpoint plus' (n : nat) (m : nat) : nat :=
  match n with
  | O => m
  | S n' => S (plus' n' m)
  end.

(** When Coq checks this definition, it notes that [plus'] is
    "decreasing on 1st argument."  What this means is that we are
    performing a _structural recursion_ over the argument [n] -- i.e.,
    that we make recursive calls only on strictly smaller values of
    [n].  This implies that all calls to [plus'] will eventually
    terminate.  Coq demands that some argument of _every_ [Fixpoint]
    definition is "decreasing."

    This requirement is a fundamental feature of Coq's design: In
    particular, it guarantees that every function that can be defined
    in Coq will terminate on all inputs.  However, because Coq's
    "decreasing analysis" is not very sophisticated, it is sometimes
    necessary to write functions in slightly unnatural ways. *)

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, optional (decreasing)  *)
(** To get a concrete sense of this, find a way to write a sensible
    [Fixpoint] definition (of a simple function on numbers, say) that
    _does_ terminate on all inputs, but that Coq will reject because
    of this restriction. *)

(*Fixpoint incr_to_decr (n:nat) (m:nat) :=
  match n with
  | O => n * m 
  | S p => match m with
           | O => m
           | S t => incr_to_decr n t + incr_to_decr p m
           end  
  end.
*)

(** [] *)

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * More Exercises *)

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars (boolean_functions)  *)
(** Use the tactics you have learned so far to prove the following
    theorem about boolean functions. *)

Theorem identity_fn_applied_twice :
  forall (f : bool -> bool),
  (forall (x : bool), f x = x) ->
  forall (b : bool), f (f b) = b.
Proof.
  intros f x b. rewrite -> x. rewrite -> x. reflexivity.
Qed.

(** Now state and prove a theorem [negation_fn_applied_twice] similar
    to the previous one but where the second hypothesis says that the
    function [f] has the property that [f x = negb x].*)

Theorem negation_fn_applied_twice :
  forall (f: bool -> bool),
  (forall (x : bool), f x = negb x) ->
  forall (b : bool), f (f b) = b.
Proof.
  intros f x b. rewrite -> x. rewrite -> x. destruct b.
  - reflexivity.
  - reflexivity.
Qed.

(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars (andb_eq_orb)  *)
(** Prove the following theorem.  (You may want to first prove a
    subsidiary lemma or two. Alternatively, remember that you do
    not have to introduce all hypotheses at the same time.) *)

Theorem andb_eq_orb :
  forall (b c : bool),
  (andb b c = orb b c) ->
  b = c.
Proof.
  intros b c. destruct b.
  - destruct c.
    + reflexivity.
    + simpl. intros H1. rewrite -> H1. reflexivity.
  - destruct c.
    + simpl. intros H2. rewrite -> H2. reflexivity.
    + reflexivity.
Qed.

(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 3 stars (binary)  *)
(** Consider a different, more efficient representation of natural
    numbers using a binary rather than unary system.  That is, instead
    of saying that each natural number is either zero or the successor
    of a natural number, we can say that each binary number is either

      - zero,
      - twice a binary number, or
      - one more than twice a binary number.

    (a) First, write an inductive definition of the type [bin]
        corresponding to this description of binary numbers.

    (Hint: Recall that the definition of [nat] from class,

         Inductive nat : Type :=
           | O : nat
           | S : nat -> nat.

    says nothing about what [O] and [S] "mean."  It just says "[O] is
    in the set called [nat], and if [n] is in the set then so is [S
    n]."  The interpretation of [O] as zero and [S] as successor/plus
    one comes from the way that we _use_ [nat] values, by writing
    functions to do things with them, proving things about them, and
    so on.  Your definition of [bin] should be correspondingly simple;
    it is the functions you will write next that will give it
    mathematical meaning.)

    (b) Next, write an increment function [incr] for binary numbers,
        and a function [bin_to_nat] to convert binary numbers to unary numbers.

    (c) Write five unit tests [test_bin_incr1], [test_bin_incr2], etc.
        for your increment and binary-to-unary functions. Notice that
        incrementing a binary number and then converting it to unary
        should yield the same result as first converting it to unary and
        then incrementing.
*)

Inductive bin : Type :=
  | zero : bin
  | one : bin
  | carry : bin -> bin.


(** [] *)

(** $Date: 2016-05-26 16:17:19 -0400 (Thu, 26 May 2016) $ *)