A good way to formalize groups in Coq - coq

Question

I try to formalize groups in Coq. I want to be as general as possible. I try to do something, but I'm not really happy with it. I found different implementations and I don't know which one to choose.
For example I found this :
https://people.cs.umass.edu/~arjun/courses/cs691pl-spring2014/assignments/groups.html
(* The set of the group. *)
Parameter G : Set.
(* The binary operator. *)
Parameter f : G -> G -> G.
(* The group identity. *)
Parameter e : G.
(* The inverse operator. *)
Parameter i : G -> G.
(* For readability, we use infix <+> to stand for the binary operator. *)
Infix "<+>" := f (at level 50, left associativity).
(* The operator [f] is associative. *)
Axiom assoc : forall a b c, a <+> b <+> c = a <+> (b <+> c).
(* [e] is the right-identity for all elements [a] *)
Axiom id_r : forall a, a <+> e = a.
(* [i a] is the right-inverse of [a]. *)
Axiom inv_r : forall a, a <+> i a = e.
but why the author use axioms and not definitions ? Moreover, I don't like to have some parameters at top level.
On the book CoqArt, I found this implementation :
Record group : Type :=
{A : Type;
op : A→A→A;
sym : A→A;
e : A;
e_neutral_left : ∀ x:A, op e x = x;
sym_op : ∀ x:A, op (sym x) x = e;
op_assoc : ∀ x y z:A, op (op x y) z = op x (op y z)}.
On this definition I think the definition is to specialize, because if I want to define monoïds, I will redefine op_assoc or neutre left. Beyond that,
for some theorems, I don't need to use groups. For example if I want to proove that right_inverse is the same as left_inverse if the law is associative.
An other question is what are good axioms for groups :
use neutral element as axiom or left neutral element
use inverse element as axiom or left inverse
What is the more convenient to work with ?
Finally, if I want to proove some other theorems, I probably want to have some syntactic sugar in order to use the binary operation and inverse elements. What are your advices to have a convenient notation for groups ?
For the moment I did this :
Definition binary_operation {S:Set} := S -> S -> S.
Definition commutative {S:Set} (dot:binary_operation) := forall (a b:S), dot a b = dot b a.
Definition associative {S:Set} (dot:binary_operation) := forall (a b c:S), dot (dot a b) c = dot a (dot b c).
Definition left_identity {S:Set} (dot:binary_operation) (e:S) := forall a:S, (dot e a) = a.
Definition right_identity {S:Set} (dot:binary_operation) (e:S) := forall a:S, (dot a e) = a.
Definition identity {S:Set} (dot: binary_operation) (e:S) := left_identity dot e /\ right_identity dot e.
Definition left_inv {S:Set} (dot:binary_operation) (a' a e:S) := identity dot e -> dot a' a = e.
Definition right_inv {S:Set} (dot:binary_operation) (a' a e:S) := identity dot e -> dot a a' = e.
Definition inv {S:Set} (dot:binary_operation) (a' a e:S) := left_inv dot a' a e /\ right_inv dot a' a e.
I found an implementation in the code source of Coq but I don't understand why it is a good implementation : https://github.com/tmiya/coq/blob/master/group/group2.v

Answer 1

I can't provide a complete answer, but perhaps this can help you a bit.
Your first article provides definitions and axioms sufficient for proving exercises without paying too much attention to being 'good' or 'useful' implementation. That's why axioms and not definitions.
If you want 'to be as general as possible', you can use example from CoqArt, or wrap your group definition in a section, using Variable instead of Parameter.
Section Group.
(* The set of the group. *)
Variable G : Set.
(* The binary operator. *)
Variable f : G -> G -> G.
(* The group identity. *)
Variable e : G.
(* The inverse operator. *)
Variable i : G -> G.
(* For readability, we use infix <+> to stand for the binary operator. *)
Infix "<+>" := f (at level 50, left associativity).
(* The operator [f] is associative. *)
Variable assoc : forall a b c, a <+> b <+> c = a <+> (b <+> c).
(* [e] is the right-identity for all elements [a] *)
Variable id_r : forall a, a <+> e = a.
(* [i a] is the right-inverse of [a]. *)
Variable inv_r : forall a, a <+> i a = e.
If you then prove some theorems inside this section, like this:
Theorem trivial : forall a b, a <+> e <+> b = a <+> b.
intros.
rewrite id_r.
auto.
Qed.
After section ends,
End Group.
Coq generalizes them
Check trivial.
trivial
: forall (G : Set) (f : G -> G -> G) (e : G),
(forall a : G, f a e = a) -> forall a b : G, f (f a e) b = f a b
As for your last example, it's probably not about actual definition of group, but instead about proving that a set, a binary operation and four axioms for this operation define a group.