# MergeMerge Sort, With Specification and Proof of Correctness

From VFA Require Import Perm.
From VFA Require Import Sort.
From Coq Require Import Recdef. (* needed for Function feature *)
Mergesort is a well-known sorting algorithm, normally presented as an imperative algorithm on arrays, that has worst-case O(n log n) execution time and requires O(n) auxiliary space.
The basic idea is simple: we divide the data to be sorted into two halves, recursively sort each of them, and then merge together the (sorted) results from each half:

mergesort xs =
split xs into ys,zs;
ys' = mergesort ys;
zs' = mergesort zs;
return (merge ys' zs')
(As usual, if you are unfamiliar with mergesort see Wikipedia or your favorite algorithms textbook.)
Mergesort on lists works essentially the same way: we split the original list into two halves, recursively sort each sublist, and then merge the two sublists together again. The only difference, compared to the imperative algorithm, is that splitting the list takes O(n) rather than O(1) time; however, that does not affect the asymptotic cost, since the merge step already takes O(n) anyhow.

## Split and its properties

Let us try to write down the Gallina code for mergesort. The first step is to write a splitting function. There are several ways to do this, since the exact splitting method does not matter as long as the results are (roughly) equal in size. For example, if we know the length of the list, we could use that to split at the half-way point. But here is an attractive alternative, which simply alternates assigning the elements into left and right sublists:

Fixpoint split {X:Type} (l:list X) : (list X × list X) :=
match l with
| [] ⇒ ([],[])
| [x] ⇒ ([x],[])
| x1::x2::l'
let (l1,l2) := split l' in
(x1::l1,x2::l2)
end.
Note: For generality, we made this function polymorphic, since the type of the values in the list is irrelevant to the splitting process.
While this function is straightforward to define, it can be a bit challenging to work with. Let's try to prove the following lemma, which is obviously true:

Lemma split_len_first_try: {X} (l:list X) (l1 l2: list X),
split l = (l1,l2) →
length l1length l
length l2length l.
Proof.
induction l; intros.
- inv H. simpl. omega.
- destruct l as [| x l'].
+ inv H.
split; simpl; auto.
+ inv H. destruct (split l') as [l1' l2'] eqn:E. inv H1.
(* We're stuck! The IH talks about split (x::l') but we
only know aobut split (a::x::l'). *)

Abort.
The problem here is that the standard induction principle for lists requires us to show that the property being proved follows for any non-empty list if it holds for the tail of that list. What we want here is a "two-step" induction principle, that instead requires us to show that the property being proved follows for a list of length at least two, if it holds for the tail of the tail of that list. Formally:

Definition list_ind2_principle:=
(A : Type) (P : list AProp),
P [] →
( (a:A), P [a]) →
( (a b : A) (l : list A), P lP (a :: b :: l)) →
l : list A, P l.
If we assume the correctness of this "non-standard" induction principle, our split_len proof is easy, using a form of the induction tactic that lets us specify the induction principle to use:

Lemma split_len': list_ind2_principle
{X} (l:list X) (l1 l2: list X),
split l = (l1,l2) →
length l1length l
length l2length l.
Proof.
unfold list_ind2_principle; intro IP.
induction l using IP; intros.
- inv H. omega.
- inv H. simpl; omega.
- inv H. destruct (split l) as [l1' l2']. inv H1.
simpl.
destruct (IHl l1' l2') as [P1 P2]; auto; omega.
Qed.
We still need to prove list_ind2_principle. There are several ways to do this, but one direct way is to write an explicit proof term, thus:

Definition list_ind2 :
(A : Type) (P : list AProp),
P [] →
( (a:A), P [a]) →
( (a b : A) (l : list A), P lP (a :: b :: l)) →
l : list A, P l :=
fun (A : Type)
(P : list AProp)
(H : P [])
(H0 : a : A, P [a])
(H1 : (a b : A) (l : list A), P lP (a :: b :: l)) ⇒
fix IH (l : list A) : P l :=
match l with
| [] ⇒ H
| [x] ⇒ H0 x
| x::y::l'H1 x y l' (IH l')
end.
Here, the fix keyword defines a local recursive function IH of type l:list A, P l, which is returned as the overall value of list_ind2. As usual, this function must be obviously terminating to Coq (which it is because the recursive call is on a sublist l' of the original argument l) and the match must be exhaustive over all possible lists (which it evidently is).
With our induction principle in hand, we can finally prove split_len free and clear:

Lemma split_len: {X} (l:list X) (l1 l2: list X),
split l = (l1,l2) →
length l1length l
length l2length l.
Proof.
apply (@split_len' list_ind2).
Qed.

#### Exercise: 3 stars, standard (split_perm)

Here's another fact about split that we will find useful later on.

Lemma split_perm : {X:Type} (l l1 l2: list X),
split l = (l1,l2) → Permutation l (l1 ++ l2).
Proof.
induction l as [| x | x1 x2 l1' IHl'] using list_ind2; intros.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

## Defining Merge

Next, we need a merge function, which takes two sorted lists (of naturals) and returns their sorted result. This would seem easy to write:

Fixpoint merge l1 l2 :=
match l1, l2 with
| [], _l2
| _, [] ⇒ l1
| a1::l1', a2::l2'
if a1 <=? a2 then a1 :: merge l1' l2 else a2 :: merge l1 l2'
end.

But Coq will reject this definition with the message:

Error: Cannot guess decreasing argument of fix.

Coq insists the every Fixpoint definition be structurally recursive on some specified argument, meaning that at each recursive call the callee is passed a value that is a sub-term of the caller's argument value. This check guarantees that every Fixpoint is actually terminating.
It is fairly obvious that this function is in fact terminating, because at each call, either l1 or l2 is passed the tail of its original value. But unfortunately, Fixpoint recursive calls must always decrease on a single fixed argument -- and neither l1 nor l2 will do. (That's why Coq couldn't guess the one to use.) We might reasonably wish that Coq was a little smarter, but it isn't.
There are a number of ways to get around the problem of convincing Coq that a function is actually terminating when the "natural" Fixpoint doesn't work. In this case, a little creativity (or a peek at the Coq library) might lead us to the following definition:

Fixpoint merge l1 l2 {struct l1} :=
let fix merge_aux l2 :=
match l1, l2 with
| [], _l2
| _, [] ⇒ l1
| a1::l1', a2::l2'
if a1 <=? a2 then a1 :: merge l1' l2 else a2 :: merge_aux l2'
end
in merge_aux l2.
Coq accepts the outer definition because it is structurally decreasing on l1 (we specify that with the {struct l1} annotation, although Coq would have guessed this even if we didn't write it), and it accepts the inner definition because it is structurally recursive on its (sole) argument. (Note that let fix ... in ... end is just a mechanism for defining a local recursive function.)
This definition will turn out to work pretty well; the only irritation is that simplification will show the definition of merge_aux, as illustrated by the following examples.
First, let's remind ourselves that Coq desugars a match over multiple arguments into a nested sequence of matches:

Print merge.
==> (after a little renaming for clarity)

fix merge (l1 l2 : list nat) {struct l1} : list nat :=
let
fix merge_aux (l2 : list nat) : list nat :=
match l1 with
| [] ⇒ l2
| a1 :: l1'
match l2 with
| [] ⇒ l1
| a2 :: l2'
if a1 <=? a2 then a1 :: merge l1' l2 else a2 :: merge_aux l2'
end
end in
merge_aux l2.

Let's prove the following simple lemmas about merge:

Lemma merge2 : (x1 x2:nat) r1 r2,
x1x2
merge (x1::r1) (x2::r2) =
x1::merge r1 (x2::r2).
Proof.
intros.
simpl. (* This blows up in an unpleasant way, but we can
still make some sense of it.  Look at the
(fix merge_aux ...) term. It represents the
the local function merge_aux after the value of the
free variable l1 has been substituted by x1::r1,
the match over l1 has been simplified to its
second arm (the non-empty case) and x1 and r1 have
been substituted for the pattern variables a1 and l1'
The entire fix is applied to r2, but Coq won't attempt
any further simplification until the structure of r2
is known. *)

bdestruct (x1 <=? x2).
- auto.
- (* Since H and H0 are contradictory, this case follows by omega.
But (ignoring that for the moment), note that we can get further
simplification to occur if we give some structure to l2: *)

simpl. (* does nothing *)
destruct r2; simpl. (* makes some progress *)
+ omega.
+ omega.
Qed.

Lemma merge_nil_l : l, merge [] l = l.
Proof.
intros. simpl.
(* Once again, we see a version of merge_aux specialized to
the value l1 = nil. Now we see only the first arm (the
empty case) of the match expression, which simply returns l2;
in other words, here the fix is just the identity function.
And once again, the fix is applied to l.  Irritatingly,
Coq _still_ refuses to perform the application unless l
is destructured first (even though the answer is always l). *)

destruct l.
- auto.
- auto.
Qed.
Morals:
(1) Even though the proof state involving local recursive functions can can be hard to read, persevere!
(2) If Coq won't simplify an "obvious" application, try destructing the argument.
We will defer stating and proving other properties of merge until later.

## Defining Mergesort

Finally, we need to define the main mergesort function itself. Once again, we might hope to write something simple like this:

Fixpoint mergesort (l: list nat) : list nat :=
let (l1,l2) := split l in
merge (mergesort l1) (mergesort l2).

Since this function has only one argument, Coq guesses that it is intended to be structurally decreasing, but still rejects the definition, this time with the complaint:

Recursive call to mergesort has principal argument equal to
"l1" instead of a subterm of "l".

Again, the problem is that Coq has no way to know that l1 and l2 are "smaller" than l. And this time, it is hard to complain that Coq is being stupid, since the fact that split returns smaller lists than it is passed is nontrivial.
In fact, it isn't true! Consider the behavior of split on empty or singleton lists... This is case where Coq's totality requirements can actually help us correct the definition of our code. What we really want to write is something more like:

Fixpoint mergesort (l: list nat) : list nat :=
match l with
| [] ⇒ []
| [x] ⇒ [x]
| _let (l1,l2) := split l in merge (mergesort l1) (mergesort l2).

Now this function really is terminating! But Coq still won't let us write it with a Fixpoint. Instead, we need to use a mechanism (there are several available) for defining functions that accommodates an explicit way to show that the function only calls itself on smaller arguments. We will use the Function command:

Function mergesort (l: list nat) {measure length l} : list nat :=
match l with
| [] ⇒ []
| [x] ⇒ [x]
| _let (l1,l2) := split l in
merge (mergesort l1) (mergesort l2)
end.
Function is similar to Fixpoint, but it lets us specify an explicit measure on the function arguments. The annotation {measure length l} says that the function length applied to argument l serves as a decreasing measure. After processing this definition, Coq enters proof mode and demands proofs that each recursive call is indeed on a shorter list. Happily, we proved that fact already.

Proof.
- (* recursive call on l1 *)
intros.
simpl in ×. destruct (split l1) as [l1' l2'] eqn:E. inv teq1.
destruct (split_len _ _ _ E).
simpl. omega.
- (* recursive call on l2 *)
intros.
simpl in ×. destruct (split l1) as [l1' l2'] eqn:E. inv teq1.
destruct (split_len _ _ _ E).
simpl. omega.
Defined.
Notice that the Proof must end with the keyword Defined rather than Qed; if we don't do this, we won't be able to actually compute with mergesort.
Defining mergesort with Function rather than Fixpoint causes the automatic generation of some useful auxiliary definitions that we will need when working with it. First, we get a lemma mergesort_equation, which performs a one-level unfolding of the function.

Check mergesort_equation.
==>

mergesort_equation
: l : list nat,
mergesort l =
match l with
| [] ⇒ []
| [x] ⇒ [x]
| x :: _ :: _
let (l2, l3) := split l in merge (mergesort l2) (mergesort l3)
end
We should always use apply mergesort_equation to simplify a call to mergesort rather than trying to unfold or simpl it, which will lead to ugly or mysterious results.
Second, we get an induction principle mergesort_ind; performing induction using this principle can be much easier than trying to use list induction over the argument l.

Check mergesort_ind.
==>
mergesort_ind
: P : list natlist natProp,
( l : list nat, l = [] → P [] []) →
( (l : list nat) (x : nat), l = [x] → P [x] [x]) →
( l _x : list nat,
l = _x
match _x with
| _ :: _ :: _True
| _False
end
l1 l2 : list nat,
split l = (l1, l2) →
P l1 (mergesort l1) →
P l2 (mergesort l2) → P _x (merge (mergesort l1) (mergesort l2))) →
l : list nat, P l (mergesort l)

## Correctness: Sortedness

As with insertion sort, our goal is to prove that mergesort produces a sorted list that is a permutation of the original list, i.e. to prove

is_a_sorting_algorithm mergesort
We will start by showing that mergesort produces a sorted list. The key lemma is to show that merge of two sorted lists produces a sorted list. It is perhaps easiest to break out a sub-lemma first:

#### Exercise: 2 stars, standard (sorted_merge1)

Lemma sorted_merge1 : x x1 l1 x2 l2,
xx1xx2
sorted (merge (x1::l1) (x2::l2)) →
sorted (x :: merge (x1::l1) (x2::l2)).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

#### Exercise: 4 stars, standard (sorted_merge)

Lemma sorted_merge : l1, sorted l1
l2, sorted l2
sorted (merge l1 l2).
Proof.
(* Hint: This is one unusual case where it is _much_ easier to do induction on
l1 rather than on sorted l1. You will also need to do
nested inductions on l2. *)

(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

#### Exercise: 2 stars, standard (mergesort_sorts)

Lemma mergesort_sorts: l, sorted (mergesort l).
Proof.
apply mergesort_ind; intros. (* Note that we use the special induction principle. *)
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

## Correctness: Permutation

Finally, we must show that mergesort returns a permutation of its input.
As usual, the key lemma is for merge.
Incidentally, you are welcome to import the alternative characterizations of permutations as multisets given in Multiset or BagPerm and use that instead of Permutation if you think it will be easier. (I'm not sure!)

#### Exercise: 3 stars, advanced (merge_perm)

Lemma merge_perm: (l1 l2: list nat),
Permutation (l1 ++ l2) (merge l1 l2).
Proof.
(* Hint: A nested induction on l2 is required. *)
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.

#### Exercise: 3 stars, advanced (mergesort_perm)

Lemma mergesort_perm: l, Permutation l (mergesort l).
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
Putting it all together:

Theorem mergesort_correct:
is_a_sorting_algorithm mergesort.
Proof.
split.
apply mergesort_perm.
apply mergesort_sorts.
Qed.