### coq

#### Coq rewriting using lambda arguments

We have a function that inserts an element into a specific index of a list. Fixpoint inject_into {A} (x : A) (l : list A) (n : nat) : option (list A) := match n, l with | 0, _ => Some (x :: l) | S k, [] => None | S k, h :: t => let kwa := inject_into x t k in match kwa with | None => None | Some l' => Some (h :: l') end end. The following property of the aforementioned function is of relevance to the problem (proof omitted, straightforward induction on l with n not being fixed): Theorem inject_correct_index : forall A x (l : list A) n, n <= length l -> exists l', inject_into x l n = Some l'. And we have a computational definition of permutations, with iota k being a list of nats [0...k]: Fixpoint permute {A} (l : list A) : list (list A) := match l with | [] => [[]] | h :: t => flat_map ( fun x => map ( fun y => match inject_into h x y with | None => [] | Some permutations => permutations end ) (iota (length t))) (permute t) end. The theorem we're trying to prove: Theorem num_permutations : forall A (l : list A) k, length l = k -> length (permute l) = factorial k. By induction on l we can (eventually) get to following goal: length (permute (a :: l)) = S (length l) * length (permute l). If we now simply cbn, the resulting goal is stated as follows: length (flat_map (fun x : list A => map (fun y : nat => match inject_into a x y with | Some permutations => permutations | None => [] end) (iota (length l))) (permute l)) = length (permute l) + length l * length (permute l) Here I would like to proceed by destruct (inject_into a x y), which is impossible considering x and y are lambda arguments. Please note that we will never get the None branch as a result of the lemma inject_correct_index. How does one proceed from this proof state? (Please do note that I am not trying to simply complete the proof of the theorem, that's completely irrelevant.)

There is a way to rewrite under binders: the setoid_rewrite tactic (see §27.3.1 of the Coq Reference manual). However, direct rewriting under lambdas is not possible without assuming an axiom as powerful as the axiom of functional extensionality (functional_extensionality). Otherwise, we could have proved: (* classical example *) Goal (fun n => n + 0) = (fun n => n). Fail setoid_rewrite <- plus_n_O. Abort. See here for more detail. Nevertheless, if you are willing to accept such axiom, then you can use the approach described by Matthieu Sozeau in this Coq Club post to rewrite under lambdas like so: Require Import Coq.Logic.FunctionalExtensionality. Require Import Coq.Setoids.Setoid. Require Import Coq.Classes.Morphisms. Generalizable All Variables. Instance pointwise_eq_ext {A B : Type} `(sb : subrelation B RB eq) : subrelation (pointwise_relation A RB) eq. Proof. intros f g Hfg. apply functional_extensionality. intro x; apply sb, (Hfg x). Qed. Goal (fun n => n + 0) = (fun n => n). setoid_rewrite <- plus_n_O. reflexivity. Qed.

### Related Links

Coq proof tactics

Proof General's cursor is covering up my code when used in the terminal

Ltac not working after upgrading to Coq 8.5

Does ssreflect assume excluded middle?

Equality in COQ for enumerated types

Using “rewrite [hypothesis with implication]”

Confused by Coq imports

Behaviour of the apply tactic when the goal and the applied term match

Is there a ring or field tactic that can solve existential variables in Coq?

Proof by case analysis in Coq

How to let COQ write complete proof log?

How to compile Logic.v in Coq

is there a `eapply`-like tactic that works on `exists` goals in Coq?

rewrite works for = but not for <-> (iff) in Coq

Passing patterns to tactics

How to automatically introduce symmetries into Coq hypotheses?