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
[Merged by Bors] - feat(group_theory/subgroup): add mem_map_of_mem #7459
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
Oh, it turns out that
|
Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
(ϕ.map (M.mem_map_of_mem (φ : P'.quotient →* P.quotient)) ϕ') _ _, | ||
(ϕ.map (submonoid.apply_coe_mem_map (φ : P'.quotient →* P.quotient)) ϕ') _ _, |
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.
What's your preference for M
being implicit vs implicit here @riccardobrasca? I'm happy either way, and only really care about consistency between the lemmas that share names. I'm fine with it as you have it now, but I'm also fine with you making s
, p
etc explicit in all the new lemmas.
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.
What about leaving the variable implicit in mem_map_of_mem
(that seems the standard in mathlib), but explicit in apply_coe_mem_map
to allow dot notation as it is currently used?
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.
Oh, there are a lot of mem_map_of_mem
... I guess I will open another PR to add all the corresponding apply_coe_mem_map
when we have decided which form is better.
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.
I agree that this can be postponed to a later PR.
Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
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.
Thanks 🎉
bors merge
From LTE. Written by @PatrickMassot Co-authored-by: Patrick Massot <patrickmassot@free.fr>
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
From LTE. Written by @PatrickMassot - [x] depends on: #7459 Co-authored-by: Patrick Massot <patrickmassot@free.fr>
This is a continuation of #7459. In this PR: - We modify `ideal.mem_map_of_mem` in order to be consistent with `submonoid.mem_map_of_mem`. - We modify `submonoid.apply_coe_mem_map` (and friends) to have the submonoid as an explicit variable. This was the case before #7459 (but with a different, and not consistent, name). It seems to me that this version makes the code more readable. - We add `ideal.apply_coe_mem_map` (similar to `submonoid.apply_coe_mem_map`). Note that `mem_map_of_mem` is used in other places, for example we have `multiset.mem_map_of_mem`, but since a multiset is not a type there is no `apply_coe_mem_map` to add there.
From LTE.
Written by @PatrickMassot