Basics.v

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

(* REMINDER:

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

   (See the [Preface] for why.)
*)

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

(** The functional style of programming is founded on simple, everyday
    mathematical intuitions: 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 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 gives rise to a
    host of useful and powerful programming 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 _polymorphic
    type systems_ supporting abstraction and code reuse.  Coq offers
    all of these features.

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

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Homework Submission Guidelines *)

(** If you are using _Software Foundations_ in a course, your
    instructor may use automatic scripts to help grade your homework
    assignments.  In order for these scripts to work correctly (and
    ensure that you get full credit for your work!), please be
    careful to follow these rules:

      - Do not change the names of exercises. Otherwise the grading
        scripts will be unable to find your solution.
      - Do not delete exercises.  If you skip an exercise (e.g.,
        because it is marked "optional," or because you can't solve it),
        it is OK to leave a partial proof in your [.v] file; in
        this case, please make sure it ends with the keyword [Admitted]
        (not, for example [Abort]).
      - It is fine to use additional definitions (of helper functions,
        useful lemmas, etc.) in your solutions.  You can put these
        before the theorem you are asked to prove.
      - If you introduce a helper lemma that you end up being unable
        to prove, hence end it with [Admitted], then make sure to also
        end the main theorem in which you use it with [Admitted], not
        [Qed].  This will help you get partial credit, in case you
        use that main theorem to solve a later exercise.

    You will also notice that each chapter (like [Basics.v]) is
    accompanied by a _test script_ ([BasicsTest.v]) that automatically
    calculates points for the finished homework problems in the
    chapter.  These scripts are mostly for the auto-grading
    tools, but you may also want to use them to double-check
    that your file is well formatted before handing it in.  In a
    terminal window, either type "[make BasicsTest.vo]" or do the
    following:

       coqc -Q . LF Basics.v
       coqc -Q . LF BasicsTest.v

    See the end of this chapter for more information about how to interpret
    the output of test scripts.

    There is no need to hand in [BasicsTest.v] itself (or [Preface.v]).

    If your class is using the Canvas system to hand in assignments...
      - If you submit multiple versions of the assignment, you may
        notice that they are given different names.  This is fine: The
        most recent submission is the one that will be graded.
      - If you want to hand in multiple files at the same time (if more
        than one chapter is assigned in the same week), you need to make a
        single submission with all the files at once using the
        "Add another file" button just above the comment box. *)

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Data and Functions *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Enumerated Types *)

(** One notable thing about 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, with all these familiar types 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, in this course we will explicitly recapitulate
    (almost) all the definitions we need, rather than getting them
    from the standard library. *)

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

(** To see how this definition mechanism works, let's start with
    a very simple example.  The following declaration tells Coq that
    we are defining a set of data values -- a _type_. *)

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

(** The new type is called [day], and its members are [monday],
    [tuesday], etc.

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

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

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

(** Having defined a function, we can check that it works on
    some examples.  There are actually three different ways to do
    examples in Coq.  First, we can use the command [Compute] to
    evaluate a compound expression involving [next_working_day]. *)

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

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

(** (We show Coq's responses in comments; if you have a computer
    handy, this would be an excellent moment to fire up the Coq
    interpreter under your favorite IDE (see the [Preface] for
    installation instructions) and try it for yourself.  Load this
    file, [Basics.v], from the book's 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_working_day:
  (next_working_day (next_working_day saturday)) = tuesday.

(** This declaration does two things: it makes an assertion
    (that the second working day 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 just now, but essentially this
    little script 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." *)

(** Third, we can ask Coq to _extract_, from our [Definition], a
    program in a more conventional programming language (OCaml,
    Scheme, or Haskell) with a high-performance compiler.  This
    facility is very useful, since it gives us a path from
    proved-correct algorithms written in Gallina to efficient machine
    code.

    (Of course, we are trusting the correctness of the
    OCaml/Haskell/Scheme compiler, and of Coq's extraction facility
    itself, but this is still a big step forward from the way most
    software is developed today!)

    Indeed, this is one of the main uses for which Coq was developed.
    We'll come back to this topic in later chapters. *)

(** The [Require Export] statement on the next line tells Coq to use
    the [String] module from the standard library.  We'll use strings
    for various things in later chapters, but we need to [Require] it here so
    that the grading scripts can use it for internal purposes. *)
From Coq Require Export String.

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

(** Following the pattern of the days of the week above, we can
    define the standard type [bool] of booleans, with members [true]
    and [false]. *)

Inductive bool : Type :=
  | true
  | false.

(** 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.

(** (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, together with a
    multitude of useful functions and lemmas.  Whereever possible,
    we've named our own definitions and theorems to match the ones in
    the standard library.) *)

(** The last two of these illustrate Coq's syntax for
    multi-argument function definitions.  The corresponding
    multi-argument _application_ syntax is illustrated by the
    following "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 infix syntax for the
    boolean operations we have just defined. The [Notation] command
    defines a new symbolic notation for an existing definition. *)

Notation "x && y" := (andb x y).
Notation "x || y" := (orb x y).

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. *)

(** These examples are also an opportunity to introduce one more small
    feature of Coq's programming language: conditional expressions... *)

Definition negb' (b:bool) : bool :=
  if b then false
  else true.

Definition andb' (b1:bool) (b2:bool) : bool :=
  if b1 then b2
  else false.

Definition orb' (b1:bool) (b2:bool) : bool :=
  if b1 then true
  else b2.

(** Coq's conditionals are exactly like those found in any other
    language, with one small generalization:

    Since the [bool] type is not built in, Coq actually supports
    conditional expressions over _any_ inductively defined type with
    exactly two clauses in its definition.  The guard is considered
    true if it evaluates to the "constructor" of the first clause of
    the [Inductive] definition (which just happens to be called [true]
    in this case) and false if it evaluates to the second. *)

(** For example we can define the following datatype [bw], with
    two constructors representing black ([b]) and white ([w]) and
    define a function [invert] that inverts values of this type using
    a conditional. *)

Inductive bw : Type :=
  | bw_black
  | bw_white.

Definition invert (x: bw) : bw :=
  if x then bw_white
  else bw_black.

Compute (invert bw_black).
(* ==> bw_white : bw *)

Compute (invert bw_white).
(* ==> bw_black : bw *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (nandb)

    The [Admitted] command can be used as a placeholder for an
    incomplete proof.  We use it in exercises to indicate the parts
    that we're leaving for you -- i.e., your job is to replace
    [Admitted]s with real proofs.

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

    Hint: if [simpl] will not simplify the goal in your proof, it's
    probably because you defined [nandb] without using a [match]
    expression. Try a different definition of [nandb], or just
    skip over [simpl] and go directly to [reflexivity]. We'll
    explain this phenomenon later in the chapter. *)

Definition nandb (b1:bool) (b2:bool) : bool
  (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted.

Example test_nandb1:               (nandb true false) = true.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_nandb2:               (nandb false false) = true.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_nandb3:               (nandb false true) = true.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_nandb4:               (nandb true true) = false.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (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
  (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted.

Example test_andb31:                 (andb3 true true true) = true.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_andb32:                 (andb3 false true true) = false.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_andb33:                 (andb3 true false true) = false.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_andb34:                 (andb3 true true false) = false.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** 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. *)

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

(** If the thing after [Check] is followed by a colon and a type
    declaration, Coq will verify that the type of the expression
    matches the given type and halt with an error if not. *)

Check true
  : bool.
Check (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
  : 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, each of type [bool], this function
    produces an output of type [bool]." *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** New Types from Old *)

(** The types we have defined so far are examples of "enumerated
    types": their definitions explicitly enumerate a finite set of
    elements, called _constructors_.  Here is a more interesting type
    definition, where one of the constructors takes an argument: *)

Inductive rgb : Type :=
  | red
  | green
  | blue.

Inductive color : Type :=
  | black
  | white
  | primary (p : rgb).

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

    An [Inductive] definition does two things:

    - It defines a set of new _constructors_. E.g., [red],
      [primary], [true], [false], [monday], etc. are constructors.

    - It groups them into a new named type, like [bool], [rgb], or
      [color].

    _Constructor expressions_ are formed by applying a constructor
    to zero or more other constructors or constructor expressions,
    obeying the declared number and types of the constructor arguments.
    E.g., these are valid constructor expressions...
        - [red]
        - [true]
        - [primary red]
        - etc.
    ...but these are not:
        - [red primary]
        - [true red]
        - [primary (primary red)]
        - etc.
*)

(** In particular, the definitions of [rgb] and [color] say
    which constructor expressions belong to the sets [rgb] and
    [color]:

    - [red], [green], and [blue] belong to the set [rgb];
    - [black] and [white] belong to the set [color];
    - if [p] is a constructor expression belonging to the set [rgb],
      then [primary p] ("the constructor [primary] applied to the
      argument [p]") is a constructor expression belonging to the set
      [color]; and
    - constructor expressions formed in these ways are the _only_ ones
      belonging to the sets [rgb] and [color]. *)

(** We can define functions on colors using pattern matching just as
    we did for [day] and [bool]. *)

Definition monochrome (c : color) : bool :=
  match c with
  | black => true
  | white => true
  | primary p => false
  end.

(** Since the [primary] constructor takes an argument, a pattern
    matching [primary] should include either a variable, as we just
    did (note that we can choose its name freely), or a constant of
    appropriate type (as below). *)

Definition isred (c : color) : bool :=
  match c with
  | black => false
  | white => false
  | primary red => true
  | primary _ => false
  end.

(** The pattern "[primary _]" here is shorthand for "the constructor
    [primary] applied to any [rgb] constructor except [red]." *)

(** (The wildcard pattern [_] has the same effect as the dummy
    pattern variable [p] in the definition of [monochrome].) *)

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

(** Coq provides a _module system_ to aid in organizing large
    developments.  We won't need most of its features, but one is
    useful here: 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].  We will use this feature to limit
    the scope of definitions, so that we are free to reuse names. *)

Module Playground.
  Definition foo : rgb := blue.
End Playground.

Definition foo : bool := true.

Check Playground.foo : rgb.
Check foo : bool.

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Tuples *)

Module TuplePlayground.

(** A single constructor with multiple parameters can be used
    to create a tuple type. As an example, consider representing
    the four bits in a nybble (half a byte). We first define
    a datatype [bit] that resembles [bool] (using the
    constructors [B0] and [B1] for the two possible bit values)
    and then define the datatype [nybble], which is essentially
    a tuple of four bits. *)

Inductive bit : Type :=
  | B1
  | B0.

Inductive nybble : Type :=
  | bits (b0 b1 b2 b3 : bit).

Check (bits B1 B0 B1 B0)
  : nybble.

(** The [bits] constructor acts as a wrapper for its contents.
    Unwrapping can be done by pattern-matching, as in the [all_zero]
    function below, which tests a nybble to see if all its bits are
    [B0].

    We use underscore (_) as a _wildcard pattern_ to avoid inventing
    variable names that will not be used. *)

Definition all_zero (nb : nybble) : bool :=
  match nb with
  | (bits B0 B0 B0 B0) => true
  | (bits _ _ _ _) => false
  end.

Compute (all_zero (bits B1 B0 B1 B0)).
(* ===> false : bool *)
Compute (all_zero (bits B0 B0 B0 B0)).
(* ===> true : bool *)

End TuplePlayground.

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

(** We put this section in a module so that our own definition of
    natural numbers does not interfere with the one from the
    standard library.  In the rest of the book, we'll want to use
    the standard library's. *)

Module NatPlayground.

(** All the types we have defined so far -- both "enumerated
    types" such as [day], [bool], and [bit] and tuple types such as
    [nybble] built from them -- are finite.  The natural numbers, on
    the other hand, are an infinite set, so we'll need to use a
    slightly richer form of type declaration to represent them.

    There are many representations of numbers to choose from. You are
    almost certainly most familiar with decimal notation (base 10),
    using the digits 0 through 9, for example, to form the number 123.
    You may very likely also have encountered hexadecimal
    notation (base 16), in which the same number is represented as 7B,
    or octal (base 8), where it is 173, or binary (base 2), where it
    is 1111011. Using an enumerated type to represent digits, we could
    use any of these as our representation natural numbers. Indeed,
    there are circumstances where each of these choices would be
    useful.

    The binary representation is valuable in computer hardware because
    the digits can be represented with just two distinct voltage
    levels, resulting in simple circuitry. Analogously, we wish here
    to choose a representation that makes _proofs_ simpler.

    In fact, there is a representation of numbers that is even simpler
    than binary, namely unary (base 1), in which only a single digit
    is used (as our forebears might have done to count days by making
    scratches on the walls of their caves). To represent unary numbers
    with a Coq datatype, we use two constructors. The capital-letter
    [O] constructor represents zero. The [S] constructor can be
    applied to the representation of the natural number n, yieldimng
    the representation of n+1, where [S] stands for "successor" (or
    "scratch").  Here is the complete datatype definition: *)

Inductive nat : Type :=
  | O
  | S (n : nat).

(** With this definition, 0 is represented by [O], 1 by [S O],
    2 by [S (S O)], and so on. *)

(** Informally, the clauses of the definition can be read:
      - [O] is a natural number (remember this is the letter "[O],"
        not the numeral "[0]").
      - [S] can be put in front of a natural number to yield another
        one -- i.e., if [n] is a natural number, then [S n] is too. *)

(** Again, let's look at this a bit more closely.  The definition
    of [nat] says how expressions in the set [nat] can be built:

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

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

    A critical point here is that what we've done so far is just to
    define a _representation_ of numbers: a way of writing them down.
    The names [O] and [S] are arbitrary, and at this point they have
    no special meaning -- they are just two different marks that we
    can use to write down numbers, together with a rule that says any
    [nat] will be written as some string of [S] marks followed by an
    [O].  If we like, we can write essentially the same definition
    this way: *)

Inductive otherNat : Type :=
  | stop
  | tick (foo : otherNat).

(** The _interpretation_ of these marks arises from how we use them to
    compute. *)

(** We can do this by writing functions that pattern match on
    representations of natural numbers just as we did above with
    booleans and days -- for example, here is 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']."  *)

(** The following [End] command closes the current module, so
    [nat] will refer back to the type from the standard library. *)

End NatPlayground.

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

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

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

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

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

Check S        : nat -> nat.
Check pred     : nat -> nat.
Check minustwo : nat -> nat.

(** These are all things that can be applied to a number to yield a
    number.  However, there is a fundamental difference between [S]
    and the other two: functions like [pred] and [minustwo] are
    defined by giving _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!  It is just a way of
    writing down numbers.

    Think about standard decimal numerals: the numeral [1] is not a
    computation; it's a piece of data.  When we write [111] to mean
    the number one hundred and eleven, we are using [1], three times,
    to write down a concrete representation of a number.

    Let's go on and define some more functions over numbers.

    For most interesting computations involving numbers, simple
    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.  Such functions are
    introduced with the keyword [Fixpoint] instead of [Definition]. *)

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

(** We could define [odd] by a similar [Fixpoint] declaration, but
    here is a simpler way: *)

Definition odd (n:nat) : bool :=
  negb (even n).

Example test_odd1:    odd 1 = true.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.
Example test_odd2:    odd 4 = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** (You may 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 discuss why shortly.)

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

Module NatPlayground2.

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

(** Adding three to two gives us five (whew!): *)

Compute (plus 3 2).
(* ===> 5 : nat *)

(** The steps of simplification that Coq performs here can be
    visualized as follows: *)

(*      [plus 3 2]
   i.e. [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]
   i.e. [5]  *)

(** 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.

(** We 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.

End NatPlayground2.

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

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (factorial)

    Recall the standard mathematical factorial function:

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

    Translate this into Coq.

    Make sure you put a [:=] between the header we've provided and
    your definition.  If you see an error like "The reference
    factorial was not found in the current environment," it means
    you've forgotten the [:=]. *)

Fixpoint factorial (n:nat) : nat
  (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted.

Example test_factorial1:          (factorial 3) = 6.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_factorial2:          (factorial 5) = (mult 10 12).
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(** Again, we can make numerical expressions easier to read and write
    by introducing notations for addition, subtraction, and
    multiplication. *)

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) : nat.

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

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

(** When we say that Coq comes with almost nothing built-in, we really
    mean it: even testing equality is a user-defined operation!
    Here is a function [eqb], which tests natural numbers for
    [eq]uality, yielding a [b]oolean.  Note the use of nested
    [match]es (we could also have used a simultaneous match, as
    in [minus].) *)

Fixpoint eqb (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' => eqb n' m'
            end
  end.

(** Similarly, 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.

(** We'll be using these (especially [eqb]) a lot, so let's give
    them infix notations. *)

Notation "x =? y" := (eqb x y) (at level 70) : nat_scope.
Notation "x <=? y" := (leb x y) (at level 70) : nat_scope.

Example test_leb3': (4 <=? 2) = false.
Proof. simpl. reflexivity.  Qed.

(** We now have two symbols that both look like equality: [=]
    and [=?].  We'll have much more to say about their differences and
    similarities later. For now, the main thing to notice is that
    [x = y] is a logical _claim_ -- a "proposition" -- that we can try to
    prove, while [x =? y] is a boolean _expression_ whose value (either
    [true] or [false]) we can compute. *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (ltb)

    The [ltb] function tests natural 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.  (It can be done with just one previously defined
    function, but you can use two if you want.) *)

Definition ltb (n m : nat) : bool
  (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted.

Notation "x <? y" := (ltb x y) (at level 70) : nat_scope.

Example test_ltb1:             (ltb 2 2) = false.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_ltb2:             (ltb 2 4) = true.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Example test_ltb3:             (ltb 4 2) = false.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

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

(** Now that we've looked at 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 made 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
    establish 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 off directly from 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 if
    you look at the [.v] file in your IDE than it does if you view the
    HTML rendition in your browser. In [.v] files, we write the
    universal quantifier [forall] using the reserved identifier
    "forall."  When the [.v] files are converted to HTML, this gets
    transformed into the standard upside-down-A symbol.)

    This is a good place to mention that [reflexivity] is a bit more
    powerful than we have acknowledged. In the examples we have seen,
    the calls to [simpl] were actually not required because
    [reflexivity] will do 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: *)

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

(** Moreover, it will be useful 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 mostly a matter of style; the keywords
    [Example] and [Theorem] (and a few others, including [Lemma],
    [Fact], and [Remark]) mean pretty much the same thing to Coq.

    Second, we've added the quantifier [forall n:nat], so that our
    theorem talks about _all_ natural numbers [n].  Informally, to
    prove theorems of this form, we generally start by saying "Suppose
    [n] is some number..."  Formally, this is achieved in the proof by
    [intros n], which moves [n] from the quantifier in the goal to a
    _context_ of current assumptions.

    Incidentally, we could have used another identifier instead of [n]
    in the [intros] clause, (though of course this might be confusing
    to human readers of the proof): *)

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

(** 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 many 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. *)

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

(** The following theorem is a bit more interesting than the
    ones 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 we are given such
    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.
    In fact, we can omit the arrow, and Coq will default to rewriting
    left to right.  To rewrite from right to left, use [rewrite <-].
    Try making this change in the above proof and see what changes.) *)
(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (plus_id_exercise)

    Remove "[Admitted.]" and fill in the proof.  (Note that the
    theorem has _two_ hypotheses -- [n = m] and [m = o] -- each to the
    left of an implication arrow.) *)

Theorem plus_id_exercise : forall n m o : nat,
  n = m -> m = o -> n + m = m + o.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(** The [Admitted] command tells Coq that we want to skip trying
    to prove this theorem and just accept it as a given.  This is
    often useful for developing longer proofs: 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] you are leaving
    a door open for total nonsense to enter Coq's nice, rigorous,
    formally checked world! *)

(** The [Check] command can also be used to examine the statements of
    previously declared lemmas and theorems.  The two examples below
    are lemmas about multiplication that are proved in the standard
    library.  (We will see how to prove them ourselves in the next
    chapter.) *)

Check mult_n_O.
(* ===> forall n : nat, 0 = n * 0 *)

Check mult_n_Sm.
(* ===> forall n m : nat, n * m + n = n * S m *)

(** We can 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 will try to fill in appropriate values for them
    by matching the body of the previous theorem statement against the
    current goal. *)

Theorem mult_n_0_m_0 : forall p q : nat,
  (p * 0) + (q * 0) = 0.
Proof.
  intros p q.
  rewrite <- mult_n_O.
  rewrite <- mult_n_O.
  reflexivity. Qed.

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (mult_n_1)

    Use [mult_n_Sm] and [mult_n_0] to prove the following
    theorem.  (Recall that [1] is [S O].) *)

Theorem mult_n_1 : forall p : nat,
  p * 1 = p.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * 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.  (We then
    use the [Abort] command to give up on it for the moment.)*)

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

(** The reason for this is that the definitions of both [eqb]
    and [+] begin by performing a [match] on their first argument.
    Here, the first argument to [+] is the unknown number [n] and the
    argument to [eqb] 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 [(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] represents -- we can calculate that at least
    it will begin with one [S]; and this is enough to calculate that,
    again, [(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,
  (n + 1) =? 0 = false.
Proof.
  intros n. destruct n as [| n'] eqn:E.
  - 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 doesn't take any
    arguments.  The second component gives a single name, [n'], since
    [S] is a unary constructor.

    In each subgoal, Coq remembers the assumption about [n] that is
    relevant for this subgoal -- either [n = 0] or [n = S n'] for some
    n'.  The [eqn:E] annotation tells [destruct] to give the name [E]
    to this equation.  (Leaving off the [eqn:E] annotation causes Coq
    to elide these assumptions in the subgoals.  This slightly
    streamlines proofs where the assumptions are not explicitly used,
    but it is better practice to keep them for the sake of
    documentation, as they can help keep you oriented when working
    with the subgoals.)

    The [-] signs on the second and third lines are called _bullets_,
    and they mark the parts of the proof that correspond to the two
    generated subgoals.  The part of the proof script that comes after
    a bullet is the entire proof for the corresponding 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 second one simplifies [(S n' + 1) =? 0] to [false] by
    first rewriting [(S n' + 1)] to [S (n' + 1)], then unfolding
    [eqb], and then simplifying the [match].

    Marking cases with bullets is optional: if bullets are not
    present, Coq simply expects 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, improving
    readability. Moreover, 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 larger
    developments, where fragile proofs can lead to long debugging
    sessions!

    There are no hard and fast rules for how proofs should be
    formatted in Coq -- e.g., 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 a single line.  Good style lies
    somewhere in the middle.  One reasonable guideline is to limit
    yourself to 80- (or, if you have a wide screen or good eyes,
    120-) 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 eqn:E.
  - 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.  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 eqn:Eb.
  - destruct c eqn:Ec.
    + reflexivity.
    + reflexivity.
  - destruct c eqn:Ec.
    + 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 [+], we can use [*] (asterisk) or any repetition
    of a bullet symbol (e.g. [--] or [***]) as a bullet.  We can also
    enclose sub-proofs in curly braces: *)

Theorem andb_commutative' : forall b c, andb b c = andb c b.
Proof.
  intros b c. destruct b eqn:Eb.
  { destruct c eqn:Ec.
    { reflexivity. }
    { reflexivity. } }
  { destruct c eqn:Ec.
    { 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. The choice of braces,
    bullets, or a combination of the two is purely a matter of
    taste. *)

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

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (andb_true_elim2)

    Prove the following claim, marking cases (and subcases) with
    bullets when you use [destruct].

    Hint: You will eventually need to destruct both booleans, as in
    the theorems above. But its best to delay introducing the
    hypothesis until after you have an opportunity to simplify it.

    Hint 2: When you reach a contradiction in the hypotheses, focus on
    how to [rewrite] with that contradiction. *)

Theorem andb_true_elim2 : forall b c : bool,
  andb b c = true -> c = true.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(** 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] eqn:E.

    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.  (You'll also note one downside of this shorthand: we lose
    the equation recording the assumption we are making in each
    subgoal, which we previously got from the [eqn:E] annotation.) *)

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

(** If there are no constructor arguments that need names, we can just
    write [[]] to get the case analysis. *)

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

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (zero_nbeq_plus_1) *)
Theorem zero_nbeq_plus_1 : forall n : nat,
  0 =? (n + 1) = false.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** 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 just 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 pair
    type type [bool*bool] (which we'll see in a later chapter) it
    guesses [type_scope].  Occasionally, it is necessary to help it
    out by writing, for example, [(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 notations ([3], [4], [5],
    [42], 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).

    Pro tip: Coq's notation mechanism is not especially powerful.
    Don't expect too much from it. *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** 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 be "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, standard, 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.

    (If you choose to turn in this optional exercise as part of a
    homework assignment, make sure you comment out your solution so
    that it doesn't cause Coq to reject the whole file!) *)

(* FILL IN HERE

    [] *)

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

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Warmups *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (identity_fn_applied_twice)

    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.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (negation_fn_applied_twice)

    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]. *)

(* FILL IN HERE *)

(* Do not modify the following line: *)
Definition manual_grade_for_negation_fn_applied_twice : option (nat*string) := None.
(** (The last definition is used by the autograder.)

    [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard, optional (andb_eq_orb)

    Prove the following theorem.  (Hint: This can be a bit tricky,
    depending on how you approach it.  You will probably need both
    [destruct] and [rewrite], but destructing everything in sight is
    not the best way.) *)

Theorem andb_eq_orb :
  forall (b c : bool),
  (andb b c = orb b c) ->
  b = c.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Course Late Policies, Formalized *)

(** Suppose that a course has a grading policy based on late days,
    where a student's final letter grade is lowered if they submit too
    many homework assignments late.

    In the next series of problems, we model this situation using the
    features of Coq that we have seen so far and prove some simple
    facts about this grading policy.  *)

Module LateDays.

(** First, we inroduce a datatype for modeling the "letter" component
    of a grade. *)
Inductive letter : Type :=
  | A | B | C | D | F.

(** Then we define the modifiers -- a [Natural] [A] is just a "plain"
    grade of [A]. *)
Inductive modifier : Type :=
  | Plus | Natural | Minus.

(** A full [grade], then, is just a [letter] and a [modifier].

    We might write, informally, "A-" for the Coq value [Grade A Minus],
    and similarly "C" for the Coq value [Grade C Natural]. *)
Inductive grade : Type :=
  Grade (l:letter) (m:modifier).

(** We will want to be able to say when one grade is "better" than
    another.  In other words, we need a way to compare two grades.  As
    with natural numbers, we could define [bool]-valued functions
    [grade_eqb], [grade_ltb], etc., and that would work fine.
    However, we can also define a slightly more informative type for
    comparing two values, as shown below.  This datatype has three
    constructors that can be used to indicate whether two values are
    "equal", "less than", or "greater than" one another. (This
    definition also appears in the Coq standard libary.)  *)

Inductive comparison : Type :=
  | Eq         (* "equal" *)
  | Lt         (* "less than" *)
  | Gt.        (* "greater than" *)

(** Using pattern matching, it is not difficult to define the
    comparison operation for two letters [l1] and [l2] (see below).
    This definition uses two features of [match] patterns: First,
    recall that we can match against _two_ values simultaneously by
    separating them and the corresponding patterns with comma [,].
    This is simply a convenient abbreviation for nested pattern
    matching.  For example, the match expression on the left below is
    just shorthand for the lower-level "expanded version" shown on the
    right:

  match l1, l2 with          match l1 with
  | A, A => Eq               | A => match l2 with
  | A, _ => Gt                      | A => Eq
  end                               | _ => Gt
                                    end
                             end
*)
(** As another shorthand, we can also match one of several
    possibilites by using [|] in the pattern.  For example the pattern
    [C , (A | B)] stands for two cases: [C, A] and [C, B]. *)

Definition letter_comparison (l1 l2 : letter) : comparison :=
  match l1, l2 with
  | A, A => Eq
  | A, _ => Gt
  | B, A => Lt
  | B, B => Eq
  | B, _ => Gt
  | C, (A | B) => Lt
  | C, C => Eq
  | C, _ => Gt
  | D, (A | B | C) => Lt
  | D, D => Eq
  | D, _ => Gt
  | F, (A | B | C | D) => Lt
  | F, F => Eq
  end.

(** We can test the [letter_comparison] operation by trying it out on a few
    examples. *)
Compute letter_comparison B A.
(** ==> Lt *)
Compute letter_comparison D D.
(** ==> Eq *)
Compute letter_comparison B F.
(** ==> Gt *)

(** As a further sanity check, we can prove that the
    [letter_comparison] function does indeed give the result [Eq] when
    comparing a letter [l] against itself.  *)
(** **** Exercise: 1 star, standard (letter_comparison) *)
Theorem letter_comparison_Eq :
  forall l, letter_comparison l l = Eq.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
(** [] *)

(** We can follow the same strategy to define the comparison operation
    for two grade modifiers.  We consider them to be ordered as
    [Plus > Natural > Minus]. *)
Definition modifier_comparison (m1 m2 : modifier) : comparison :=
  match m1, m2 with
  | Plus, Plus => Eq
  | Plus, _ => Gt
  | Natural, Plus => Lt
  | Natural, Natural => Eq
  | Natural, _ => Gt
  | Minus, (Plus | Natural) => Lt
  | Minus, Minus => Eq
  end.

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (grade_comparison)

    Use pattern matching to complete the following definition.

    (This ordering on grades is sometimes called "lexicographic"
    ordering: we first compare the letters, and we only consider the
    modifiers in the case that the letters are equal.  I.e. all grade
    variants of [A] are greater than all grade variants of [B].)

    Hint: match against [g1] and [g2] simultaneously, but don't try to
    enumerate all the cases.  Instead do case analysis on the result
    of a suitable call to [letter_comparison] to end up with just [3]
    possibilities. *)

Definition grade_comparison (g1 g2 : grade) : comparison
  (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted.

(** The following "unit tests" of your [grade_comparison] function
    should pass once you have defined it correctly. *)

Example test_grade_comparison1 :
  (grade_comparison (Grade A Minus) (Grade B Plus)) = Gt.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example test_grade_comparison2 :
  (grade_comparison (Grade A Minus) (Grade A Plus)) = Lt.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example test_grade_comparison3 :
  (grade_comparison (Grade F Plus) (Grade F Plus)) = Eq.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example test_grade_comparison4 :
  (grade_comparison (Grade B Minus) (Grade C Plus)) = Gt.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)

(** Now that we have a definition of grades and how they compare to
    one another, let us implement a late-penalty fuction. *)

(** First, we define what it means to lower the [letter] component of
    a grade.  Since [F] is already the lowest grade possible, we just
    leave it alone.  *)
Definition lower_letter (l : letter) : letter :=
  match l with
  | A => B
  | B => C
  | C => D
  | D => F
  | F => F  (* Can't go lower than [F]! *)
  end.

(** Our formalization can already help us understand some corner cases
    of the grading policy.  For example, we might expect that if we
    use the [lower_letter] function its result will actually be lower,
    as claimed in the following theorem.  But this theorem is not
    provable!  (Do you see why?) *)
Theorem lower_letter_lowers: forall (l : letter),
  letter_comparison (lower_letter l) l = Lt.
Proof.
  intros l.
  destruct l.
  - simpl. reflexivity.
  - simpl. reflexivity.
  - simpl. reflexivity.
  - simpl. reflexivity.
  - simpl. (* We get stuck here. *)
Abort.

(** The problem, of course, has to do with the "edge case" of lowering
    [F], as we can see like this: *)
Theorem lower_letter_F_is_F:
  lower_letter F = F.
Proof.
  simpl. reflexivity.
Qed.

(** With this insight, we can state a better version of the lower
    letter theorem that actually is provable.  In this version, the
    hypothesis about [F] says that [F] is strictly smaller than [l],
    which rules out the problematic case above. In other words, as
    long as [l] is bigger than [F], it will be lowered. *)
(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (lower_letter_lowers)

    Prove the following theorem. *)

Theorem lower_letter_lowers:
  forall (l : letter),
    letter_comparison F l = Lt ->
    letter_comparison (lower_letter l) l = Lt.
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (lower_grade)

    We can now use the [lower_letter] definition as a helper to define
    what it means to lower a grade by one step.  Complete the
    definition below so that it sends a grade [g] to one step lower
    (unless it is already [Grade F Minus], which should remain
    unchanged).  Once you have implemented it correctly, the subsequent
    "unit test" examples should hold trivially.

    Hint: To make this a succinct definition that is easy to prove
    properties about, you will probably want to use nested pattern
    matching. The outer match should not match on the specific letter
    component of the grade -- it should consider only the modifier.
    You should definitely _not_ try to enumerate all of the
    cases.

    Our solution is under 10 lines of code total. *)
Definition lower_grade (g : grade) : grade
  (* REPLACE THIS LINE WITH ":= _your_definition_ ." *). Admitted.

Example lower_grade_A_Plus :
  lower_grade (Grade A Plus) = (Grade A Natural).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example lower_grade_A_Natural :
  lower_grade (Grade A Natural) = (Grade A Minus).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example lower_grade_A_Minus :
  lower_grade (Grade A Minus) = (Grade B Plus).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example lower_grade_B_Plus :
  lower_grade (Grade B Plus) = (Grade B Natural).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example lower_grade_F_Natural :
  lower_grade (Grade F Natural) = (Grade F Minus).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example lower_grade_twice :
  lower_grade (lower_grade (Grade B Minus)) = (Grade C Natural).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

Example lower_grade_thrice :
  lower_grade (lower_grade (lower_grade (Grade B Minus))) = (Grade C Minus).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** Coq makes no distinction between an [Example] and a [Theorem]. We
    state the following as a [Theorem] only as a hint that we will use
    it in proofs below. *)
Theorem lower_grade_F_Minus : lower_grade (Grade F Minus) = (Grade F Minus).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_A_Plus *)
(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_A_Natural *)
(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_A_Minus *)
(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_B_Plus *)
(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_F_Natural *)
(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_twice *)
(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_thrice *)
(* GRADE_THEOREM 0.25: lower_grade_F_Minus

    [] *)

(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard (lower_grade_lowers)

    Prove the following theorem, which says that, as long as the grade
    starts out above F-, the [lower_grade] option does indeed lower
    the grade.  As usual, destructing everything in sight is _not_ a
    good idea.  Judicious use of [destruct] along with rewriting is a
    better strategy.

    Hint: If you defined your [grade_comparison] function as
    suggested, you will need to rewrite using [letter_comparison_Eq]
    in two cases.  The remaining case is the only one in which you
    need to destruct a [letter].  The case for [F] will probably
    benefit from [lower_grade_F_Minus].  *)
Theorem lower_grade_lowers :
  forall (g : grade),
    grade_comparison (Grade F Minus) g = Lt ->
    grade_comparison (lower_grade g) g = Lt.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)

(** Now that we have implemented and tested a function that lowers a
    grade by one step, we can implement a specific late-days policy.
    Given a number of [late_days], the [apply_late_policy] function
    computes the final grade from [g], the initial grade.

    This function encodes the following policy:

      # late days     penalty
         0 - 8        no penalty
         9 - 16       lower grade by one step (A+ => A, A => A-, A- => B+, etc.)
        17 - 20       lower grade by two steps
          >= 21       lower grade by three steps (a whole letter)
*)
Definition apply_late_policy (late_days : nat) (g : grade) : grade :=
  if late_days <? 9 then g
  else if late_days <? 17 then lower_grade g
  else if late_days <? 21 then lower_grade (lower_grade g)
  else lower_grade (lower_grade (lower_grade g)).

(** Sometimes it is useful to be able to "unfold" a definition to be
    able to make progress on a proof.  Soon, we will see how to do this
    in a much simpler way automatically, but for now, it is easy to prove
    that a use of any definition like [apply_late_policy] is equal to its
    right hand side just by using reflexivity.

    This result is useful because it allows us to use [rewrite] to
    expose the internals of the definition. *)
Theorem apply_late_policy_unfold :
  forall (late_days : nat) (g : grade),
    (apply_late_policy late_days g)
    =
    (if late_days <? 9 then g  else
       if late_days <? 17 then lower_grade g
       else if late_days <? 21 then lower_grade (lower_grade g)
            else lower_grade (lower_grade (lower_grade g))).
Proof.
  intros. reflexivity.
Qed.

(** Now let's prove some properties about this policy. *)

(** The next theorem states that if a student accrues no more than eight
    late days throughout the semester, their grade is unaffected. It
    is easy to prove: once you use the [apply_late_policy_unfold] you
    can rewrite using the hypothesis. *)

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (no_penalty_for_mostly_on_time) *)
Theorem no_penalty_for_mostly_on_time :
  forall (late_days : nat) (g : grade),
    (late_days <? 9 = true) ->
    apply_late_policy late_days g = g.
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)

(** The following theorem states that, if a student has between 9 and
    16 late days, their final grade is lowered by one step. *)

(** **** Exercise: 2 stars, standard (graded_lowered_once) *)
Theorem grade_lowered_once :
  forall (late_days : nat) (g : grade),
    (late_days <? 9 = false) ->
    (late_days <? 17 = true) ->
    (apply_late_policy late_days g) = (lower_grade g).
Proof.
  (* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

(** [] *)
End LateDays.

(* ================================================================= *)
(** ** Binary Numerals *)

(** **** Exercise: 3 stars, standard (binary)

    We can generalize our unary representation of natural numbers to
    the more efficient binary representation by treating a binary
    number as a sequence of constructors [B0] and [B1] (representing 0s
    and 1s), terminated by a [Z]. For comparison, in the unary
    representation, a number is a sequence of [S] constructors terminated
    by an [O].

    For example:

        decimal               binary                          unary
           0                       Z                              O
           1                    B1 Z                            S O
           2                B0 (B1 Z)                        S (S O)
           3                B1 (B1 Z)                     S (S (S O))
           4            B0 (B0 (B1 Z))                 S (S (S (S O)))
           5            B1 (B0 (B1 Z))              S (S (S (S (S O))))
           6            B0 (B1 (B1 Z))           S (S (S (S (S (S O)))))
           7            B1 (B1 (B1 Z))        S (S (S (S (S (S (S O))))))
           8        B0 (B0 (B0 (B1 Z)))    S (S (S (S (S (S (S (S O)))))))

    Note that the low-order bit is on the left and the high-order bit
    is on the right -- the opposite of the way binary numbers are
    usually written.  This choice makes them easier to manipulate.

    (Comprehension check: What unary numeral does [B0 Z] represent?) *)

Inductive bin : Type :=
  | Z
  | B0 (n : bin)
  | B1 (n : bin).

(** Complete the definitions below of an increment function [incr]
    for binary numbers, and a function [bin_to_nat] to convert
    binary numbers to unary numbers. *)

Fixpoint incr (m:bin) : bin :=
  match m with
  | Z => B1 Z
  | B0 m' => B1 m'
  | B1 m' => B0 (incr m')
  end.

Fixpoint double (n : nat) : nat :=
  match n with
  | 0 => 0
  | S n' => S (S (double n'))
  end.


Fixpoint bin_to_nat (m:bin) : nat :=
  match m with
  | Z => 0
  | B0 m' => double (bin_to_nat m')
  | B1 m' => S (double (bin_to_nat m'))
  end.


(** The following "unit tests" of your increment and binary-to-unary
    functions should pass after you have defined those functions correctly.
    Of course, unit tests don't fully demonstrate the correctness of
    your functions!  We'll return to that thought at the end of the
    next chapter. *)

Example test_bin_incr1 : (incr (B1 Z)) = B0 (B1 Z).
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.


Example test_bin_incr2 : (incr (B0 (B1 Z))) = B1 (B1 Z).
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.

Example test_bin_incr3 : (incr (B1 (B1 Z))) = B0 (B0 (B1 Z)).
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.

Example test_bin_incr4 : bin_to_nat (B0 (B1 Z)) = 2.
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.

Example test_bin_incr5 :
        bin_to_nat (incr (B1 Z)) = 1 + bin_to_nat (B1 Z).
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.

Example test_bin_incr6 :
        bin_to_nat (incr (incr (B1 Z))) = 2 + bin_to_nat (B1 Z).
Proof. reflexivity. Qed.

(** [] *)

(* ################################################################# *)
(** * Optional: Testing Your Solutions *)

(** Each SF chapter comes with a test file containing scripts that
    check whether you have solved the required exercises. If you're
    using SF as part of a course, your instructor will likely be
    running these test files to autograde your solutions. You can also
    use these test files, if you like, to make sure you haven't missed
    anything.

    Important: This step is _optional_: if you've completed all the
    non-optional exercises and Coq accepts your answers, this already
    shows that you are in good shape.

    The test file for this chapter is [BasicsTest.v]. To run it, make
    sure you have saved [Basics.v] to disk.  Then first run
    [coqc -Q . LF Basics.v] and then run [coqc -Q . LF BasicsTest.v];
    or, if you have make installed, you can run [make BasicsTest.vo].
    (Make sure you do this in a directory that also contains a file
    named [_CoqProject] containing the single line [-Q . LF].)

    If you accidentally deleted an exercise or changed its name, then
    [make BasicsTest.vo] will fail with an error that tells you the
    name of the missing exercise.  Otherwise, you will get a lot of
    useful output:

    - First will be all the output produced by [Basics.v] itself.  At
      the end of that you will see [COQC BasicsTest.v].

    - Second, for each required exercise, there is a report that tells
      you its point value (the number of stars or some fraction
      thereof if there are multiple parts to the exercise), whether
      its type is ok, and what assumptions it relies upon.

      If the _type_ is not [ok], it means you proved the wrong thing:
      most likely, you accidentally modified the theorem statement
      while you were proving it.  The autograder won't give you any
      points in this case, so make sure to correct the theorem.

      The _assumptions_ are any unproved theorems which your solution
      relies upon.  "Closed under the global context" is a fancy way
      of saying "none": you have solved the exercise. (Hooray!)  On
      the other hand, a list of axioms means you haven't fully solved
      the exercise. (But see below regarding "Allowed Axioms.") If the
      exercise name itself is in the list, that means you haven't
      solved it; probably you have [Admitted] it.

    - Third, you will see the maximum number of points in standard and
      advanced versions of the assignment.  That number is based on
      the number of stars in the non-optional exercises.  (In the
      present file, there are no advanced exercises.)

    - Fourth, you will see a list of "Allowed Axioms".  These are
      unproven theorems that your solution is permitted to depend
      upon, aside from the fundamental axioms of Coq's logic.  You'll
      probably see something about [functional_extensionality] for
      this chapter; we'll cover what that means in a later chapter.

    - Finally, you will see a summary of whether you have solved each
      exercise.  Note that summary does not include the critical
      information of whether the type is ok (that is, whether you
      accidentally changed the theorem statement): you have to look
      above for that information.

    Exercises that are manually graded will also show up in the
    output.  But since they have to be graded by a human, the test
    script won't be able to tell you much about them.  *)

(* 2025-01-13 16:00 *)