-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 298
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
archive(imo1988_q6): a formalization of Q6 on IMO1988 #1455
Conversation
You have a bunch of nonterminal |
Mostly, |
@jcommelin |
@jcommelin, shall we make |
@semorrison I don't care too much. This can wait for a |
archive/imo1988_q6.lean
Outdated
We need a long list of assumptions for this lemma. | ||
The upside is that it takes care of several annoying edge cases. | ||
First of all, the user should provide x and y | ||
that satisfy the predicate H(x,y). |
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 had a hard time following this, and I already know roughly how to solve the IMO problem. I think it would help to give as an example the particular H(x,y) which is used for the IMO problem. Also, you never mention claim
, which is pretty important (at least if you are trying to understand the lemma just from the docstring, and not from looking at its type).
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 have thoroughly rewritten the docstring. I hope it is better now.
archive/imo1988_q6.lean
Outdated
let p : ℕ × ℕ := ⟨x,y⟩, | ||
have hp : p ∈ upper_branch := ⟨h₀, hxy⟩, | ||
-- We also consider the exceptional set of solutions (a,b) that satisfy | ||
-- a = 0 or a = b or B a = b or B a = b + a. |
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.
This comment doesn't seem to match the definition--it's missing the "base case". It would be better to say why we doing this, that is, move the "strategy" comment a bit earlier and probably also expand it to contain an outline of the entire rest of the proof.
It seems that the strategy is really: Do descent starting from the given (x, y). The exceptional locus is where we can't keep descending, but our assumptions were chosen to handle those cases.
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've tried to improve these comments a bit.
This looks mergeable to me. @rwbarton @jcommelin is this waiting on anything? |
I think I've processed all the comments. So now it's up to the other mathlib overlords (-; |
…munity#1455) * archive(imo1988_q6): a formalization of Q6 on IMO1988 * WIP * Clean up, document, and use omega * Remove some non-terminal simps * Non-terminal simp followed by ring is fine * Include copyright statement * Add comment justifying example * Process review comments * Oops, forgot a line * Improve comments in the proof
Another attempt at formalizing Q6 of IMO1988