CoqCheatSheet

Reference sheet for the Coq language.

CoqCheatSheet

This project is to contain a listing of common facts for working with the Coq language.

The listing sheet, as PDF, can be found here, while below is an unruly html rendition.

This reference sheet is built around the system https://github.com/alhassy/CheatSheet.

Functions & Variables
Booleans
Strings
Records:convert:
Variants and Pattern Matching:convert:
Tuples and Lists:convert:
Options:convert:
Example Proof:Maybe_prove_classic_demorgan_instead:
Administrivia, Syntax
intros Tactic: ‘∀, ⇒’ Introduction
exact Tactic
Tactics refine & pose [local declarations]
Algebraic Datatypes —Inductive and case
Examples of Common Datatypes
True, False, true, false
Notation, Definition, and the tactics fold and unfold
Function Tactic simpl —“simplify”
Conjunction & Disjunction —products & sums— and ‘iff’
Existence ∃
Searching for Existing Proofs
Coq Modules
Reads

OCaml is a strict language; it is strongly typed where types are inferred.

I may write explicit type annotations below for demonstration or clarity purposes.

(* Using explicit type annotations *)
let x : int = 3;;
let f (x : int) (y : string) (r : 'a) : float = 3.14;;

Only when interacting with the top-level interpreter, commands must be terminated by ;;. OCaml uses ; as an expression separator —not a terminator!

My Emacs setup for OCaml can be found on this CheatSheet’s repo.

Functions & Variables

A function is declared with the Definition ⋯ := ⋯. syntax —variables are functions of zero arguments. Function & varaible names must begin with a lowercase letter, and may use _ or '.

They cannot begin with capital letters or numbers, or contain dashes!
Functions are like variables, but with arguments, so the same syntax applies.

<div style=”column-rule-style:solid;column-count:2;” (* A curried function *) Definition f x y := x + y.

(* Function application; no computation *)
Definition result := f 10 (2 * 6).
Compute result. (* Normalises to 22 *)

(* Partial application *)
Definition g x := f x.

Recursive functions use the Fixpoint keyword instead.

Fixpoint fact n := match n with
                   | O   => 1
                   | S n => S n * fact n end.

Compute fact 5. (* 120 *)

</div>

Here’s an example of a higher-order function & multiple local functions & an anonymous function & the main method is parametricly polymorphic.

Definition try_sum {A : Type} (bop : A -> A -> A) (test : A -> bool)
           (default : A) (x : A) (y : A)
:= let wrap a := if test a then a else default
   in bop (wrap x) (wrap y).

Require Import Nat.
Compute try_sum Nat.add (fun a => eqb (modulo a 3) 0) 666 1 33. (* 699 *)

Booleans

Require Import Bool.
Compute (true || false , true && false, if true then 1 else 2).
(* eqb, implb, and ifb is an alias for if-then-else. *)

Strings

Require Import String.
Compute ("string catenation" =? ("string " ++ "catenation"))%string.
(* The parens are important. *)

Records :convert:

Records: Products with named, rather than positional, components.

type point2d = {x : float; y : float};;

(* Construction *)
let p = {y = 2.0; x = 3.4};;

(* Pattern matching for deconstruction *)
let {x = px; y = py} = p;;
let go {x = qx; y = qy} = qx +. qy;;

(* More tersely, using “field punning”: Variables must coincide with field names. *)
let erroenous ({xx; y} : point2d )= x +. y;;
let works {x; y} = 0.0;;

(* Or we can use dot notation *)
let go q = q.x +. q.y;;

Variants and Pattern Matching :convert:

Variant types: A unified way to combine different types into a single type; each case is distinuighed by a capitalised tag.

(* Constructors must start with a capital letter, like in Haskell *)
type 'a fancy_num =   Nothing | Boring of int | Fancy of 'a
            | Point of point2d | Pair of 'a fancy_num * 'a fancy_num

let example = Pair (Fancy "twenty", Point {x = 1.2; y = 3.14})

The tags allow us to extract components of a variant value as well as to case against values by inspecting their tags. This is pattern matching.

(* Destructuring a value *)
let Pair(head, _) = example;;

(* Guarded pattern matching, with in-line casing via ‘match’ *)
let rec sum acc = function
  | Nothing -> 0 + (match acc with true -> 1 | false -> 0)
  | Fancy x when x <= "nine" -> 0
  | (Fancy "twenty") as p -> failwith "Evil!"
  | Pair(l, r) -> sum acc l + sum acc r
  | _ -> 2 (* Default case *)

let res = sum true example (* Exception: Failure "Evil!" *)

(* Type aliases can also be formed this way *)
type myints = int

Note that we can give a pattern a name; above we mentioned p, but did not use it.

Repeated & non-exhaustive patterns trigger a warning; e.g., remove the default case above.
You can pattern match on arrays too; e.g., [| x ; y ; z|] -> y.

The above mechanisms apply to all variants —including tuples, lists, and options.

Tuples and Lists :convert:

Tuples: Parentheses are optional, comma is the main operator.

let mytuple  : int * string * float = (3, "three", 3.0);;

(* Pattern matching & projection *)
let (woah0, woah1, woah2) = mytuple;;
let add_1and4 (w, x, y, z) = w + z;;
let that = fst ("that", false)

(* A singelton list of one tuple !!!!  *)
let zs = [ 1, "two", true ]

(* Lists:  type 'a list = [] | (::) of 'a * 'a list  *)
let xs = [1; 2; 3]
[1; 2; 3] = 1 :: 2 :: 3 :: [];; (* Syntactic sugar *)

(* List catenation *)
[1;2;4;6] = [1;2] @ [4;6];;

(* Pattern matching example; Only works on lists of length 3 *)
let go [x; y; z] = x + y + z;;
14 = go [2;5;7];;

(* Labelled arguments, using ‘~’, means position is irrelevant *)
[1; 2; 3] = List.map ["a", "ab", "abc"] ~f:String.length;;
[1; 2; 3] = List.map  ~f:String.length ["a", "ab", "abc"];;

Options :convert:

Option: Expressing whether a value is present or not.

(* type 'a option = None | Some of 'a *)

let divide x y : int option = if y = 0 then None else Some (x / y);;

let getInt ox = match ox with None -> 0 | Some x -> x;;
0 = getInt None;;
2 = getInt (Some 2);;

Example Proof :Maybe_prove_classic_demorgan_instead:

(* “for all things you could prove, *)
(*    if you have a proof of it, then you have a proof of it.” *)
Theorem my_first_proof : (forall A : Prop, A -> A).
Proof.
  intros A.
  intros proof_of_A.
  exact proof_of_A.
  (* Press C-c C-Enter after the next command to see what the proof *)
  (* would look like in a declarative fashion; i.e., without tactics in λ-calculus. *)
  Show Proof.
  (* Earlier in the proof, this commands shows a partial λ-term. *)
Qed.

As you can see, every Coq command ends with a period.
Prop is the type of propositions: The type of things which could have a proof.
Coq uses 3 ‘languages’:
1. Vernacular: The top-level commands that begin with a capital letter.
2. Tactics: Lower-case commands that form the proof; ‘proof strategies’.
3. Terms: The expressions of what we want to prove; e.g., forall, Prop, ->.
This is unsurprising since a language has many tongues.
Proofs and functions are the same thing!
- We can view what we call a proof as function by using Show Proof, as above.
- We can write functions directly or use [proof] tactics to write functions!

Administrivia, Syntax

Every Coq command ends with a period.

The phrase Theorem T identifying statement S is proven by P is formalised as

Theorem T : S.  (* T is only a name and can be used later. *)
Proof.
P  (* See the current state of the proof in the CoqIde by clicking, in the toolbar,
  on the green arrow pointing at a yellow ball;
  or do "C-c C-Enter" in Proof General with Emacs. *)
Qed.

Instead of Theorem, you may also see proofs that start with Example, Lemma, Remark, Fact, Corollary, and Proposition, which all mean the same thing. This difference is mostly a matter of style.
A defined theorem is essentially a function and so it can be used with arguments, in order to prove a result, as if it were a function.
The command Admitted, in-place of Qed, can be used as a placeholder for an incomplete proof or definition.
- Useful if you have a subgoal that you want to ignore for a while.
Abort, in-place of Qed, is used to give up on a proof for the moment, say for presentation purposes, and it may be begun later with no error about theorems having the same name.
Comments: (* I may be a multiline comment. *)
Stand alone commands: As top-level items, we may make commands for:
- Normalisation: Compute X executes all the function calls in X and prints the result.
- Type inspection: Command Check X. asks Coq to print the type of expression X.
Introduce local definitions: Two ways,
- Simple alias: pose (new_thing := complicated_expression).
- More involved: Write tactic assert (x : X). to define a new identifier x for a proof of X which then follows, and is conventionally indented.
Imports: Loading definitions from a library,
```
Require Import Bool.
```
Local tactic application: t in s performs the tactic t only within the hypothesis, term, s. For example, unfold defnName in H performs a local rewrite in hypothesis H.
- By default, tactics apply to the current subgoal.

`intros` Tactic: ‘∀, ⇒’ Introduction

To prove ∀ x, Px: “Let x be arbitrary, now we aim to prove Px.”
This strategy is achieved by the intros x tactic.
To prove ∀ x0 x1 ... xN, Pxs use intros x0 x1 ... xN to obtain the subgoal Pxs.
- Using just “intros.” is the same as intros H H0 H1 ... HN-1. —‘H’ for hypothesis.
- Prop names are introduced with the name declared; e.g., “intros.” for “∀ A : Prop, Px” uses the name A automatically.
Note: (A → B) = (∀ a:A, B) and so intros works for ‘→’ as well.
Show Proof will desugar intros into argument declarations of a function.

`exact` Tactic

If the goal matches a hypothesis H exactly, then use tactic exact H.
Show Proof desugars exact H into H, which acts as the result of the currently defined function.

Tactics `refine` & `pose` [local declarations]

If the current goal is (C) and you have a proof (p : A_0 \to \cdots \to A_n \to C), then refine (p _ _ ... _) introduces (n) possibly simpler subgoals corresponding to the arguments of p.

This is useful when the arguments may be difficult to prove.
If we happen to have a proof of any (A_i), then we may use it instead of an ‘_’.
Any one of the underscores could itself be (q _ ... _) if we for some proof q.

In contrast, you could declare proofs (p_i) for each (A_i), the arguments of p, first then simply invoke exact (p p0 p1 ... pN). To do this, use the pose tactic for forming local declarations: pose (res := definition_of_p_i). The parentheses are important.

Show Proof desugars pose into let...in... declarations.

Algebraic Datatypes —`Inductive` and `case`

‘forall’ and type construction allow us to regain many common datatypes, including ∃, ∧, ∨, =, ~, ⊤, ⊥.

The vernacular command Inductive lets us create new types.

After a type, say, T is defined, we are automatically provided with an elimination rule T_rec and an induction principle T_ind.
Use “Check T_rec.” to view their types.

Tactic “case x.” creates subgoals for every possible way that x could have been constructed —where ideally x occurs in the goal.

In particular, for empty type False, it creates no new subgoals.
If x occurs in some hypothesis of interest, then try performing the case before introducing the hypothesis so that the case analysis propagates into it.
case only changes the goal —never the context.
Whenever you use this tactic, indent and place - admit. for each possible case, so that way you don’t forget about them and the indentation make it clear which tactics are associated with which subgoals.
- Tactic admit let’s us ignore a goal for a while, but the proof is marked incomplete.
If x is constructed from by cons a0 ... aN, then the goal obtains these arguments. It’s thus very common to have “case H. intros.”; in-fact it’s so common that this combination is packaged up as the destruct tactic.

case H. intros a0 ... aN. ≈ destruct H as [a0 ... aN].
- If no a_i are provided, the as clause may be omitted, and H-ypothesis names are generated.
- If the case provides multiple cases, then destruct won’t work.

If the goal is a value of an ADT, use refine (name_of_constructor _ ... _) then build up the constituents one at a time.

For example, to prove A ∧ B, use refine (conj _ _).

Examples of Common Datatypes

Prop Type
- A Prop either has a proof or it does not have a proof.
- Coq restricts Prop to being either proven or unproven, rather than true or false.

ℕaturals

Inductive nat : Set :=
  | O : nat   (* Capital-letter O, not the number zero. *)
  | S : nat -> nat.

Options

Inductive option (A : Type) : Type :=
  | Some : A -> option A
  | None : option A.

Lists

Inductive list (A : Type) : Type :=
 | nil : list A
 | cons : A -> list A -> list A.

Infix "::" := cons (at level 60, right associativity) : list_scope.

`True, False, true, false`

The empty Prop, having no proofs, is False.
The top Prop, having a single proof named I, is True.
The bool type has two values: true and false.

Inductive False : Prop := .

Inductive True : Prop := | I : True.

(* ‘Set’ is the type of normal datatypes. *) Inductive bool : Set := | true : bool | false : bool.

(* From: Require Import Bool *) Definition eqb (p q : bool) : bool := match p, q with | true, true => true | true, false => false | false, true => false | false, false => true end.

In the boolean library there is a function Is_true which converts booleans into their associated Prop counterparts.

(* “Require Import” is the vernacular to load definitions from a library *)
Require Import Bool.

Exercises:

Theorem two: not (Is_true(eqb false true)). Abort.
Theorem same: forall a : bool, Is_true(eqb a a). Abort.
Theorem ex_falso_quod_libet : (forall A : Prop, False -> A). Abort.
Theorem use_case_carefully: (forall a:bool, (Is_true (eqb a true)) -> (Is_true a)). Abort.

`Notation`, `Definition`, and the tactics `fold` and `unfold`

Definition is a vernacular command that says two expressions are interchangeable. Below (not A) and A -> False are declared interchangeable.

Definition not (A:Prop) := A -> False.

Notation "~ x" := (not x) : type_scope.

A common proof technique is to ‘unfold’ a definition into familiar operators, work with that, then ‘fold’ up the result using a definition.
Tactics unfold defnName and fold defnName will interchange them.
In Coq, we use the tactic unfold f to rewrite the goal using the definition of f, then use fold f, if need be.
Notation creates an operator and defines it as an alternate notation for an expression.
( Use intros when working with negations since they are implications! )

(* If this is a recursive function, use Fixpoint in-place of Definition.*) Definition my_function (a0 : A0) ⋯ (a99 : A99) : B := match a0 , …, a99 with | C₀ p₀ … p_n, …, C_k q₀ ⋯ q_m => definition_here_for_these_constructors_Cᵢ ⋮ end.
Telescoping: If x₀, ⋯, x_n have the same type, say T, we may declare their typing by (x₀ ⋯ x_n : T).
Notation: Before the final “.”, we may include a variant of where "n + m" := (my_function n m) : B_scope. for introducing an operator immediately with a function definition.

Function Tactic `simpl` —“simplify”

If the current subgoal contains a function call with all its arguments, simpl will execute the function on the arguments.
- Sometimes a unfold is needed before simpl will work.
Modus ponens, or function application: If we have imp : A -> B, a : A then imp a is of type B. This also works if the imp contains forall’s.

Conjunction & Disjunction —products & sums— and ‘iff’

(* Haskell: Either a b = Left a | Right b *)
Inductive or (A B:Prop) : Prop :=
  | or_introl : A -> A \/ B
  | or_intror : B -> A \/ B
where "A \/ B" := (or A B) : type_scope.

(* Haskell: Pair a b = MkPair a b *)
Inductive and (A B:Prop) : Prop :=
  conj : A -> B -> A /\ B
where "A /\ B" := (and A B) : type_scope.

Definition iff (A B:Prop) := (A -> B) /\ (B -> A).
Notation "A <-> B" := (iff A B) : type_scope.

Existence ∃

Inductive ex (A:Type) (P:A -> Prop) : Prop :=
  ex_intro : forall x:A, P x -> ex (A:=A) P.

Notation "'exists' x .. y , p" := (ex (fun x => .. (ex (fun y => p)) ..))
  (at level 200, x binder, right associativity,
   format "'[' 'exists'  '/  ' x  ..  y ,  '/  ' p ']'")
  : type_scope.

Note that the constructor takes 3 arguments: The predicate P, the witness x, and a proof of P x.

If we pose a witness beforehand then refine (ex_intro _ witness _)., Coq will infer P from the current goal and the new subgoal is the proof that the witness satisfies the predicate. This is the way to prove an existence claim.

Searching for Existing Proofs

Searching for utility functions, proofs, that involve a particular identifier by using Search.
In contrast, SearchPattern takes a pattern with holes ‘_’ for expressions.
Finally, SearchRewrite only looks for proofs whose conclusion in an equality involving the given pattern.

Search le. (* le_n: forall n : nat, n <= n ) ( le_0_n: forall n : nat, 0 <= n ) ( min_l: forall n m : nat, n <= m -> Nat.min n m = n ) ( and many more *)

(* Let’s load some terribly useful arithmetic proofs. *) Require Import Arith Omega.

SearchPattern (+ <= +). (* plus_le_compat_r: forall n m p : nat, n <= m -> n + p <= m + p ) ( Nat.add_le_mono: forall n m p q : nat, n <= m -> p <= q -> n + p <= m + q ) ( etc. *)

SearchRewrite (_ + (_ - _)). (* le_plus_minus: forall n m : nat, n <= m -> m = n + (m - n) ) ( le_plus_minus_r: forall n m : nat, n <= m -> n + (m - n) = m ) ( Nat.add_sub_assoc: forall n m p : nat, p <= m -> n + (m - p) = n + m - p *)

Coq Modules

Module systems parameterise proofs and tactics over structures.

Check 0.
(**

1. A ~Module Type~ contains the signature of the abstract structure to work from;
   it lists the ~Parameter~'s and ~Axiom~'s we want to use, possibly along
   with notation declaration to make the syntax easier.
**)
(**

|      || Signature     | Structure      |
| Coq  || ≈ module type | ≈ module       |
| Agda || ≈ record type | ≈ record value |
| JavaScript || ≈ prototype | ≈ JSON object |

It is perhaps seen most easily in the last entry in the table, that
modules and modules types are essentially the same thing: They are just
partially defined record types. Again there is a difference in the usage intent:

| Concept | Intent |
|---------|--------|
| Module types | Any name may be opaque, undefined. |
| Modules | All names must be fully defined. |

**)

Module Type Graph.
  Parameter Vertex : Type.
  Parameter Edges : Vertex -> Vertex -> Prop.
  Infix "<=" := Edges : order_scope.
  Open Scope order_scope.
  Axiom loops : forall e, e <= e.
  Parameter decidable : forall x y, {x <= y} + {not (x <= y)}.
  Parameter connected : forall x y, {x <= y} + {y <= x}.
End Graph.

(* To form an instance of the graph module type, we define a module *)
(* that satisfies the module type signature: The ~<:~ declaration requires *)
(* us to have definitions and theorems with the same names and types *)
(* as those listed in the module type's signature. *)

Require Import Bool.

Module BoolGraph <: Graph.
  Definition Vertex := bool.
  Definition Edges  := fun x => fun y => leb x y.
  Infix "<=" := Edges : order_scope.
  Open Scope order_scope.
  Theorem loops: forall x : Vertex, x <= x.
    Proof.
    intros; unfold Edges, leb; destruct x; tauto.
    Qed.
  Theorem decidable: forall x y, {Edges x y} + {not (Edges x y)}.
    Proof.
      intros; unfold Edges, leb; destruct x, y.
      all: (right; discriminate) || (left; trivial).
  Qed.
  Theorem connected: forall x y, {Edges x y} + {Edges y x}.
    Proof.
      intros; unfold Edges, leb. destruct x, y.
      all: (right; trivial; fail) || left; trivial.
  Qed.
End BoolGraph.

(*
Now we can write a “module functor”: A module that takes some ~Module Type~ parameters. E.g., here is a module that define a minimum function.

Min is a function-on-modules; the input type is Graph
and the output module type is “Sig Definition min : ⋯. Parameter case_analysis: ⋯. End”. This is similar to JavaScript's approach.
*)
Module Min (G : Graph).
  Import G. (* I.e., open it so we can use names in unquantifed form. *)
  Definition min a b : Vertex := if (decidable a b) then a else b.
  Theorem case_analysis: forall P : Vertex -> Type, forall x y,        (x <= y -> P x) -> (y <= x -> P y) -> P (min x y).
  Proof.
    intros. (* P, x, y, and hypothesises H₀, H₁ now in scope*)
    (* Goal: P (min x y) *)
    unfold min. (* Rewrite “min” according to its definition. *)
    (* Goal: P (if decidable x y then x else y) *)
    destruct (decidable x y). (* Pattern match on the result of “decidable”. *)
    (* Subgoal 1: P x  ---along with new hypothesis H₃ : x ≤ y *)
    tauto. (* i.e., modus ponens using H₁ and H₃ *)
    (* Subgoal 2: P y  ---along with new hypothesis H₃ : ¬ x ≤ y *)
    destruct (connected x y).
    (* Subgoal 2.1: P y ---along with new hypothesis H₄ : x ≤ y *)
    absurd (x <= y); assumption.
    (* Subgoal 2.2: P y ---along with new hypothesis H₄ : y ≤ x *)
    tauto. (* i.e., modus ponens using H₂ and H₄ *)
  Qed.
End Min.

(* We may now apply the module functor. *)

Module Conjunction := Min BoolGraph.
Export Conjunction.
Print min.
(*
min =
fun a b : BoolGraph.Vertex => if BoolGraph.decidable a b then a else b
     : BoolGraph.Vertex -> BoolGraph.Vertex -> BoolGraph.Vertex
 *)

(*
Unlike the previous functor, which had its return type inferred, we may
explicitly declare a return type. E.g., the following functor is
a Graph → Graph function.
*)
Module Dual (G : Graph) <: Graph.
  Definition Vertex := G.Vertex.
  Definition Edges  x y : Prop := G.Edges y x.
  Definition loops := G.loops.
  Infix "<=" := Edges : order_scope.
  Open Scope order_scope.
  Theorem decidable: forall x y, {x <= y} + {not (x <= y)}.
    Proof.
      unfold Edges. pose (H := G.decidable). auto.
  Qed.
  Theorem connected: forall x y, {Edges x y} + {Edges y x}.
    Proof.
      unfold Edges.  pose (H := G.connected). auto.
  Qed.
End Dual.

(* Example use, with renaming “min ↦ max” *)
Module Max (G : Graph).
  (* Module applications cannot be chained; intermediate modules must be named. *)
  Module DualG   := Dual G.
  Module Flipped := Min DualG.
  Import G.
  Definition max := Flipped.min.
  Definition max_case_analysis:
        forall P : Vertex -> Type, forall x y,
        (y <= x -> P x) -> (x <= y -> P y) -> P (max x y)
        := Flipped.case_analysis.
End Max.

(*
See the ModuleSystemTutorial in Github coq/coq:
https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/ModuleSystemTutorial
*)


(* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *)

(* Coq has generative modules: Each application produces a new datatype instance. *)
Module Type Unit. End Unit. (* Empty signature. *)
Module TT <: Unit. End TT.  (* Empty structure. *)
Module F (X : Unit).
  Inductive t : Type := MakeT.
End F.

Module A := F TT.
Module B := F TT.
Fail Check eq_refl : A.t = B.t.
Print A.t.

Module Type Carrier. Parameter t : Type. End Carrier.
Module Nat <: Carrier. Definition t := nat. End Nat.

Module Type Morphism (X : Carrier) <: Carrier. Parameter t : Type. End Morphism.
Module Identity (X : Carrier) <: Morphism X. Definition t := X.t. End Identity.

Module Alias  (X : Carrier). Module M := X. End Alias.
Module AtNat  (F : Morphism). Module M := F Nat. End AtNat.

Module N := Alias Nat.
Print N.M.t.
(* N.M.t = Nat.t
     : Type

Modules η-expand and so aliasing does nothing.
 *)

Module O := AtNat Identity.
Print O.M.t.
(*
[ O.M.t : Type ] ; i.e., an opaque type

Type of functors do not η-reduce, and as such one cannot expect them to be applicative, and so are generative ^_^

See coq/coq OpenIssuesWithModules: https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/OpenIssuesWithModules
 *)

Reads

A tutorial by Mike Nahas —an excellent beginner’s tutorial!
Theorem proving with Coq —terse Coq overview, 13 pages
The Coq Proof Assistant, A Tutorial —gentle, 53 pages.
Introduction to the Coq proof-assistant for practical software verification —compact! 50 pages
Mathematical Components —formalisation techniques ♥‿♥
Certified Programming with Dependent Types
Mechanizing Mathematics with Dependent Types —ssreflect!
A Tutorial on (Co-)Inductive Types in Coq
Software Foundations —and ‘vfa’!

Theory behind Coq

CoqCheatSheet

Table of Contents

Functions & Variables

Booleans

Strings

Records :convert:

Variants and Pattern Matching :convert:

Tuples and Lists :convert:

Options :convert:

Example Proof :Maybe_prove_classic_demorgan_instead:

Administrivia, Syntax

intros Tactic: ‘∀, ⇒’ Introduction

exact Tactic

Tactics refine & pose [local declarations]

Algebraic Datatypes —Inductive and case

Examples of Common Datatypes

True, False, true, false

Notation, Definition, and the tactics fold and unfold

Function Tactic simpl —“simplify”

Conjunction & Disjunction —products & sums— and ‘iff’

Existence ∃

Searching for Existing Proofs

Coq Modules

Reads

`intros` Tactic: ‘∀, ⇒’ Introduction

`exact` Tactic

Tactics `refine` & `pose` [local declarations]

Algebraic Datatypes —`Inductive` and `case`

`True, False, true, false`

`Notation`, `Definition`, and the tactics `fold` and `unfold`

Function Tactic `simpl` —“simplify”