Define an `internalAddA` method on `RangeSetBlaze` in Lean.

The method should take:

1. a `RangeSetBlaze`, and
2. a possibly empty `IntRange`.

It should return a new `RangeSetBlaze` whose set equals the union

of the set of the original `RangeSetBlaze` and the set of the input range.

Use the existing definitions of `IntRange`, `NR`, `before (≺)`, and

`RangeSetBlaze`. Ensure the result remains valid (the list of nonempty
ranges stays sorted and disjoint).

Include any needed helper definitions or lemmas, and a simple correctness

lemma stating:

```lean
(internalAddA s r).toSet = s.toSet ∪ r.toSet
```

Also:
- Add small, concrete examples and sanity checks in `Main.lean` that exercise `i
- Construct a few `IntRange`/`NR` values (empty, touching, overlapping, and di
- Build a small `RangeSetBlaze`, call `internalAddA` with each case, and show
- Include at least two `example`-style lemmas that compile (e.g., facts about
- Make sure everything compiles with `lake build`. If you add a `main` in `Main.

Process constraints:
- Work in minimal, compiling steps. After each change, recompile.
- If you hit a loop (e.g., repeating edits with no new errors resolved), stop af
- Prefer Mathlib lemmas over ad-hoc proofs. Keep proofs short and readable.
- Keep naming and notation consistent with earlier sections.

At the end, output:

1) A brief rationale of the approach (1–3 sentences).
2) The updated Lean snippets (only the changed/added parts), clearly labeled wit
3) The exact commands you used to compile/run.
4) A "next improvements" list (e.g., edge cases, perf, stronger lemmas).

If you're having problems with corrupted files be very careful

to avoid creating UTF8-BOM (create an AGENTS.md to remember this)

 

Codex ran for a while before reporting:

I’m stuck in a loop while trying to formalize the ordered insertion logic for
RangeSetBlaze …
To steer progress, I used browser-based ChatGPT-5 in short cycles. On each
iteration, I provided:

the current Basic.lean source,

Codex’s latest message,

any compiler output or VS Code Problems panel notes, and

a meta-prompt to plan the next step.

Aside: A meta-prompt is a prompt you give to one AI (here, browser-based

ChatGPT-5) that tells it to write a prompt for another AI (such as the coding
agents Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Codex).

Here are the meta-prompts I used:

What should I tell [Codex]?

Can/should we use some sorrys?” [An aside below explains “Sorrys”.]

Is this progress? Should I commit as a checkpoint? What should I tell it

next?

Just give one increment of work to Codex (don’t tell me “next steps”)

OK, what’s your suggestion for incrementally going after the “sorry”’s?

should I be encouraging it to use Mathlib tactics like linarith that are

Dafny like? [An aside below explains “linarth”.]

Is it doing internalAddA correctly? Algorithm and proof?

Please suggest improvements to this algorithm and proof that might be

useful for future algorithms and proofs built on top of this. I mostly want
stuff that setup for future insert algorithms

Aside: A sorry tells Lean to treat an unfinished proof as complete, allowing the
rest of the project to compile. It’s a practical way to divide and conquer: get the big
structure running first, then gradually replace each sorry with a real proof.
Aside: linarith is a Mathlib tactic that automatically solves linear equalities and
inequalities (similar in spirit, but smaller in scope, than the “SMT” solvers used
by systems such as Dafny). It’s one of Lean’s standard automation tools for
reasoning about arithmetic.

Partway through, Codex appeared to produce a working version of

internalAddA ; the examples ran without errors or warnings. However, I
noticed that the code still contained sorry s. Codex had quietly disabled
warnings about them by inserting this line near the top of Basic.lean:

set_option warn.sorry false

I removed the line manually and had Codex continue, this time requiring it
to replace every sorry with an actual proof. The experience underscored the
importance of auditing the top level of the Lean code, a topic we’ll discuss in
Rules 8 and 9.

You can also see from the meta-prompts that even after Codex and Lean
succeeded, I had ChatGPT-5 review the code for improvements, focusing on
making it clearer, more reusable, and a stronger foundation for later
insertion algorithms.

Rule 7: Specify a simplified, realistic algorithm and have the AI

validate it.
Between the toy algorithm of Rule 6 and the full version in Rule 8, I decided
to have the AI validate an intermediate algorithm. It was simpler to prove but
still close enough to reality to be meaningful.

The intermediate algorithm, AlgoB, works like this:

If the input range is empty, return the list unchanged.