Skip to content
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] - refactor(ring_theory/class_group): redefine class_group without fraction field #16727

Closed
wants to merge 15 commits into from

Conversation

Vierkantor
Copy link
Collaborator

@Vierkantor Vierkantor commented Sep 30, 2022

Although the definition of the class group of a ring R involves the field of fractions, the definition does not depend (up to isomorphism) on the choice of field of fractions. This PR proposes to always choose fraction_ring R as that field, so that we don't need to carry around the mathematically unnecessary parameters (K) [field K] [algebra R K] [is_fraction_ring R K]. Instead, we insert the isomorphism between the definitions of class group at the API boundaries.

This was inspired by our work on quadratic rings: it gets even more annoying when you need to start carrying around a proof that the field of fractions of ℤ[1/2√-7] is ℚ(√-7).


Open in Gitpod

Vierkantor and others added 2 commits September 29, 2022 12:06
…coercions

There are a bunch of random specific versions of these lemmas floating around, which can be made generic to apply to all `one_hom_class`/`mul_hom_class`/`monoid_hom_class` instances. Compare existing `ring_hom.coe_coe`.
…quiv`

This PR adds more lemmas for the coercion of `refl` and `trans` of `{mul,add,ring}_equiv` to other types of maps. In particular, it ensures these types come with:
 * `coe_{type}_refl` and `coe_{type}_trans` where `type` ranges over the types of bundled maps that the equivs inherit from
 * `self_trans_symm` and `symm_trans_self`
 * `coe_trans`

Of course, it would be great if we figured out some generic way of stating all these results so we wouldn't have to go through and add all these lemmas.
@Vierkantor Vierkantor added awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR blocked-by-other-PR This PR depends on another PR which is still in the queue. A bot manages this label via PR comment. awaiting-CI The author would like to see what CI has to say before doing more work. t-algebra Algebra (groups, rings, fields etc) t-number-theory Number theory (also use t-algebra or t-analysis to specialize) labels Sep 30, 2022
Vierkantor and others added 9 commits September 30, 2022 14:50
…quiv`

This PR adds more lemmas for the coercion of `refl` and `trans` of `{mul,add,ring}_equiv` to other types of maps. In particular, it ensures these types come with:
 * `coe_{type}_refl` and `coe_{type}_trans` where `type` ranges over the types of bundled maps that the equivs inherit from
 * `self_trans_symm` and `symm_trans_self`
 * `coe_trans`

Of course, it would be great if we figured out some generic way of stating all these results so we wouldn't have to go through and add all these lemmas.
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the awaiting-CI The author would like to see what CI has to say before doing more work. label Oct 3, 2022
@mathlib-dependent-issues-bot mathlib-dependent-issues-bot removed the blocked-by-other-PR This PR depends on another PR which is still in the queue. A bot manages this label via PR comment. label Oct 8, 2022
Copy link
Member

@jcommelin jcommelin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks 🎉

bors merge

@leanprover-community-bot-assistant leanprover-community-bot-assistant added ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.) and removed awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR labels Oct 8, 2022
bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 8, 2022
…ion field (#16727)

Although the definition of the class group of a ring `R` involves the field of fractions, the definition does not depend (up to isomorphism) on the choice of field of fractions. This PR proposes to always choose `fraction_ring R` as that field, so that we don't need to carry around the mathematically unnecessary parameters `(K) [field K] [algebra R K] [is_fraction_ring R K]`. Instead, we insert the isomorphism between the definitions of class group at the API boundaries.

This was inspired by our work on quadratic rings: it gets even more annoying when you need to start carrying around a proof that the field of fractions of `ℤ[1/2√-7]` is `ℚ(√-7)`.



Co-authored-by: Anne Baanen <t.baanen@vu.nl>
Co-authored-by: Anne Baanen <Vierkantor@users.noreply.github.com>
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Oct 8, 2022

Pull request successfully merged into master.

Build succeeded:

@bors bors bot changed the title refactor(ring_theory/class_group): redefine class_group without fraction field [Merged by Bors] - refactor(ring_theory/class_group): redefine class_group without fraction field Oct 8, 2022
@bors bors bot closed this Oct 8, 2022
@bors bors bot deleted the redefine-class-group branch October 8, 2022 22:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.) t-algebra Algebra (groups, rings, fields etc) t-number-theory Number theory (also use t-algebra or t-analysis to specialize)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants