Using functions in definitions









up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm modeling a program in which users can choose from different operators and functions for writing queries (i.e. formulas) for the system. For showing these operators, here I defined add and mul functions and used nat datatype, instead of my program's functions and datatypes. How should I define formula that enables me to use it in definition compute_formula. I'm a bit stuck at solving this issue. Thank you.



Fixpoint add n m :=
match n with
| 0 => m
| S p => S (p + m)
end
where "n + m" := (add n m) : nat_scope.


Fixpoint mul n m :=
match n with
| 0 => 0
| S p => m + p * m
end
where "n * m" := (mul n m) : nat_scope.


Definition formula : Set :=
nat-> nat -> ?operators_add_mull ->formula.

Definition compute_formula (f: formula) : nat :=
match f with
|firstnumber,secondnumber, ?operators_add_mull =>
?operators_add_mull firstnumber secondnumber

end.









share|improve this question



























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    I'm modeling a program in which users can choose from different operators and functions for writing queries (i.e. formulas) for the system. For showing these operators, here I defined add and mul functions and used nat datatype, instead of my program's functions and datatypes. How should I define formula that enables me to use it in definition compute_formula. I'm a bit stuck at solving this issue. Thank you.



    Fixpoint add n m :=
    match n with
    | 0 => m
    | S p => S (p + m)
    end
    where "n + m" := (add n m) : nat_scope.


    Fixpoint mul n m :=
    match n with
    | 0 => 0
    | S p => m + p * m
    end
    where "n * m" := (mul n m) : nat_scope.


    Definition formula : Set :=
    nat-> nat -> ?operators_add_mull ->formula.

    Definition compute_formula (f: formula) : nat :=
    match f with
    |firstnumber,secondnumber, ?operators_add_mull =>
    ?operators_add_mull firstnumber secondnumber

    end.









    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      I'm modeling a program in which users can choose from different operators and functions for writing queries (i.e. formulas) for the system. For showing these operators, here I defined add and mul functions and used nat datatype, instead of my program's functions and datatypes. How should I define formula that enables me to use it in definition compute_formula. I'm a bit stuck at solving this issue. Thank you.



      Fixpoint add n m :=
      match n with
      | 0 => m
      | S p => S (p + m)
      end
      where "n + m" := (add n m) : nat_scope.


      Fixpoint mul n m :=
      match n with
      | 0 => 0
      | S p => m + p * m
      end
      where "n * m" := (mul n m) : nat_scope.


      Definition formula : Set :=
      nat-> nat -> ?operators_add_mull ->formula.

      Definition compute_formula (f: formula) : nat :=
      match f with
      |firstnumber,secondnumber, ?operators_add_mull =>
      ?operators_add_mull firstnumber secondnumber

      end.









      share|improve this question















      I'm modeling a program in which users can choose from different operators and functions for writing queries (i.e. formulas) for the system. For showing these operators, here I defined add and mul functions and used nat datatype, instead of my program's functions and datatypes. How should I define formula that enables me to use it in definition compute_formula. I'm a bit stuck at solving this issue. Thank you.



      Fixpoint add n m :=
      match n with
      | 0 => m
      | S p => S (p + m)
      end
      where "n + m" := (add n m) : nat_scope.


      Fixpoint mul n m :=
      match n with
      | 0 => 0
      | S p => m + p * m
      end
      where "n * m" := (mul n m) : nat_scope.


      Definition formula : Set :=
      nat-> nat -> ?operators_add_mull ->formula.

      Definition compute_formula (f: formula) : nat :=
      match f with
      |firstnumber,secondnumber, ?operators_add_mull =>
      ?operators_add_mull firstnumber secondnumber

      end.






      coq






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 9 at 2:22

























      asked Nov 9 at 1:52









      Tom And.

      305




      305






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          First, your syntax for defining a data type is not quite right: you need to use the Inductive keyword:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> ?operators_add_mul -> formula.


          It remains to figure out what the arguments to the Formula constructor should be. The Coq function type -> is a type like any other, and we can use it as the third argument:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> (nat -> nat -> nat) -> formula.


          After defining this data type, you can write an expression like Formula 3 5 add, which denotes the addition of 3 and 5. To inspect the formula data type, you need to write match using the Formula constructor:



          Definition compute_formula (f : formula) : nat :=
          match f with
          | Formula n m f => f n m
          end.





          share|improve this answer




















          • What if the Inductive formula was polymorphic with implicit arguments. How should I write the match declaration in the Definition compute_formula. In other words how I use polymorphic Inductive types as arguments in functions like compute_formula? Maybe this is totally different question.
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 19:07











          • Yeah, a new question would be better.
            – Arthur Azevedo De Amorim
            Nov 22 at 19:15










          • I posted here stackoverflow.com/questions/53437324/…
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 20:17











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53218742%2fusing-functions-in-definitions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          First, your syntax for defining a data type is not quite right: you need to use the Inductive keyword:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> ?operators_add_mul -> formula.


          It remains to figure out what the arguments to the Formula constructor should be. The Coq function type -> is a type like any other, and we can use it as the third argument:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> (nat -> nat -> nat) -> formula.


          After defining this data type, you can write an expression like Formula 3 5 add, which denotes the addition of 3 and 5. To inspect the formula data type, you need to write match using the Formula constructor:



          Definition compute_formula (f : formula) : nat :=
          match f with
          | Formula n m f => f n m
          end.





          share|improve this answer




















          • What if the Inductive formula was polymorphic with implicit arguments. How should I write the match declaration in the Definition compute_formula. In other words how I use polymorphic Inductive types as arguments in functions like compute_formula? Maybe this is totally different question.
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 19:07











          • Yeah, a new question would be better.
            – Arthur Azevedo De Amorim
            Nov 22 at 19:15










          • I posted here stackoverflow.com/questions/53437324/…
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 20:17















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          First, your syntax for defining a data type is not quite right: you need to use the Inductive keyword:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> ?operators_add_mul -> formula.


          It remains to figure out what the arguments to the Formula constructor should be. The Coq function type -> is a type like any other, and we can use it as the third argument:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> (nat -> nat -> nat) -> formula.


          After defining this data type, you can write an expression like Formula 3 5 add, which denotes the addition of 3 and 5. To inspect the formula data type, you need to write match using the Formula constructor:



          Definition compute_formula (f : formula) : nat :=
          match f with
          | Formula n m f => f n m
          end.





          share|improve this answer




















          • What if the Inductive formula was polymorphic with implicit arguments. How should I write the match declaration in the Definition compute_formula. In other words how I use polymorphic Inductive types as arguments in functions like compute_formula? Maybe this is totally different question.
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 19:07











          • Yeah, a new question would be better.
            – Arthur Azevedo De Amorim
            Nov 22 at 19:15










          • I posted here stackoverflow.com/questions/53437324/…
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 20:17













          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          First, your syntax for defining a data type is not quite right: you need to use the Inductive keyword:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> ?operators_add_mul -> formula.


          It remains to figure out what the arguments to the Formula constructor should be. The Coq function type -> is a type like any other, and we can use it as the third argument:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> (nat -> nat -> nat) -> formula.


          After defining this data type, you can write an expression like Formula 3 5 add, which denotes the addition of 3 and 5. To inspect the formula data type, you need to write match using the Formula constructor:



          Definition compute_formula (f : formula) : nat :=
          match f with
          | Formula n m f => f n m
          end.





          share|improve this answer












          First, your syntax for defining a data type is not quite right: you need to use the Inductive keyword:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> ?operators_add_mul -> formula.


          It remains to figure out what the arguments to the Formula constructor should be. The Coq function type -> is a type like any other, and we can use it as the third argument:



          Inductive formula : Set :=
          | Formula : nat -> nat -> (nat -> nat -> nat) -> formula.


          After defining this data type, you can write an expression like Formula 3 5 add, which denotes the addition of 3 and 5. To inspect the formula data type, you need to write match using the Formula constructor:



          Definition compute_formula (f : formula) : nat :=
          match f with
          | Formula n m f => f n m
          end.






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Nov 9 at 2:46









          Arthur Azevedo De Amorim

          13.9k21623




          13.9k21623











          • What if the Inductive formula was polymorphic with implicit arguments. How should I write the match declaration in the Definition compute_formula. In other words how I use polymorphic Inductive types as arguments in functions like compute_formula? Maybe this is totally different question.
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 19:07











          • Yeah, a new question would be better.
            – Arthur Azevedo De Amorim
            Nov 22 at 19:15










          • I posted here stackoverflow.com/questions/53437324/…
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 20:17

















          • What if the Inductive formula was polymorphic with implicit arguments. How should I write the match declaration in the Definition compute_formula. In other words how I use polymorphic Inductive types as arguments in functions like compute_formula? Maybe this is totally different question.
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 19:07











          • Yeah, a new question would be better.
            – Arthur Azevedo De Amorim
            Nov 22 at 19:15










          • I posted here stackoverflow.com/questions/53437324/…
            – Tom And.
            Nov 22 at 20:17
















          What if the Inductive formula was polymorphic with implicit arguments. How should I write the match declaration in the Definition compute_formula. In other words how I use polymorphic Inductive types as arguments in functions like compute_formula? Maybe this is totally different question.
          – Tom And.
          Nov 22 at 19:07





          What if the Inductive formula was polymorphic with implicit arguments. How should I write the match declaration in the Definition compute_formula. In other words how I use polymorphic Inductive types as arguments in functions like compute_formula? Maybe this is totally different question.
          – Tom And.
          Nov 22 at 19:07













          Yeah, a new question would be better.
          – Arthur Azevedo De Amorim
          Nov 22 at 19:15




          Yeah, a new question would be better.
          – Arthur Azevedo De Amorim
          Nov 22 at 19:15












          I posted here stackoverflow.com/questions/53437324/…
          – Tom And.
          Nov 22 at 20:17





          I posted here stackoverflow.com/questions/53437324/…
          – Tom And.
          Nov 22 at 20:17


















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53218742%2fusing-functions-in-definitions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

          Edmonton

          Crossroads (UK TV series)