-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 892
[Merged by Bors] - chore(Field/InjSurj): Tidy #11480
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Reduce the diff of #11203
Mathlib/Algebra/Field/Basic.lean
Outdated
| (neg : ∀ x, f (-x) = -f x) (sub : ∀ x y, f (x - y) = f x - f y) (inv : ∀ x, f x⁻¹ = (f x)⁻¹) | ||
| (div : ∀ x y, f (x / y) = f x / f y) | ||
| (nsmul : ∀ (x) (n : ℕ), f (n • x) = n • f x) | ||
| (zsmul : ∀ (x) (n : ℤ), f (n • x) = n • f x) (qsmul : ∀ (q : ℚ) (x), f (q • x) = q • f x) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did you intentionally change the order of arguments to qsmul to no longer match nsmul and zsmul?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this is so that lemmas about the coercion qsmul can be used without shuffling their arguments.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please add a comment to the docstring of this file noting the rationale for the inconsistent ordering of the binders in the nsmul and zsmul arguments.
fpvandoorn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
bors d+
| -- Porting Note: Commented | ||
| -- attribute [local semireducible] locallyRingedSpaceAdjunction ΓSpec.adjunction | ||
|
|
||
| set_option maxHeartbeats 400000 in |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
any idea what changed here / how to make this better / avoid the convert?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The proof uses 200959 heartbeats and basically the same on master so I suspect this is just noise
|
✌️ YaelDillies can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
|
bors merge |
Among other things, change the `nsmul`, `zsmul`, `qsmul` fields to have `n`/`q` come before `x`, because this matches the lemmas we want to write about them. It would be preferrable to perform the same changes to the `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup`-like typeclasses, but this is impossible with the current `to_additive` framework, so instead I have inserted some `Function.swap` at the interface between `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup` and `Ring`/`Field`. Reduce the diff of #11203
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
Among other things, change the `nsmul`, `zsmul`, `qsmul` fields to have `n`/`q` come before `x`, because this matches the lemmas we want to write about them. It would be preferrable to perform the same changes to the `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup`-like typeclasses, but this is impossible with the current `to_additive` framework, so instead I have inserted some `Function.swap` at the interface between `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup` and `Ring`/`Field`. Reduce the diff of #11203
Among other things, change the `nsmul`, `zsmul`, `qsmul` fields to have `n`/`q` come before `x`, because this matches the lemmas we want to write about them. It would be preferrable to perform the same changes to the `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup`-like typeclasses, but this is impossible with the current `to_additive` framework, so instead I have inserted some `Function.swap` at the interface between `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup` and `Ring`/`Field`. Reduce the diff of #11203
Among other things, change the `nsmul`, `zsmul`, `qsmul` fields to have `n`/`q` come before `x`, because this matches the lemmas we want to write about them. It would be preferrable to perform the same changes to the `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup`-like typeclasses, but this is impossible with the current `to_additive` framework, so instead I have inserted some `Function.swap` at the interface between `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup` and `Ring`/`Field`. Reduce the diff of #11203
Among other things, change the `nsmul`, `zsmul`, `qsmul` fields to have `n`/`q` come before `x`, because this matches the lemmas we want to write about them. It would be preferrable to perform the same changes to the `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup`-like typeclasses, but this is impossible with the current `to_additive` framework, so instead I have inserted some `Function.swap` at the interface between `AddMonoid`/`AddGroup` and `Ring`/`Field`. Reduce the diff of #11203
Among other things, change the
nsmul,zsmul,qsmulfields to haven/qcome beforex, because this matches the lemmas we want to write about them. It would be preferrable to perform the same changes to theAddMonoid/AddGroup-like typeclasses, but this is impossible with the currentto_additiveframework, so instead I have inserted someFunction.swapat the interface betweenAddMonoid/AddGroupandRing/Field.Reduce the diff of #11203