[Merged by Bors] - feat(data/finset/lattice): Distributivity lemmas #18611
Conversation
YaelDillies
added
awaiting-review
eric-wieser
added
the
awaiting-CI
github-actions
bot
removed
the
awaiting-CI
semorrison
added
the
modifies-synchronized-file
|
Can you merge master? Feel free to ping me on this one, it looks straightforward to review. |
eric-wieser
added
awaiting-author
YaelDillies
added
awaiting-review
mathlib-dependent-issues-bot
removed
the
blocked-by-other-PR
|
This PR/issue depends on:
|
eric-wieser
added
awaiting-author
YaelDillies
added
awaiting-review
| @@ -410,16 +409,20 @@ lemma sup_inf_distrib_right (s : finset ι) (f : ι → α) (a : α) : | |||
| s.sup f ⊓ a = s.sup (λ i, f i ⊓ a) := | |||
| by { rw [_root_.inf_comm, s.sup_inf_distrib_left], simp_rw _root_.inf_comm } | |||
|
|
|||
| protected lemma disjoint_sup_right : disjoint a (s.sup f) ↔ ∀ i ∈ s, disjoint a (f i) := | |||
| by simp only [disjoint_iff, sup_inf_distrib_left, sup_eq_bot_iff] | |||
| protected lemma disjoint_sup_right : disjoint a (s.sup f) ↔ ∀ ⦃i⦄, i ∈ s → disjoint a (f i) := | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These changes are worth a remark in the description
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please also explain why you did this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't it clear? You don't want to end up with overly explicit binders after rewriting a local assumption.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that argument probably leads you replacing every ∀ i ∈ s, in mathlib with ∀ ⦃i⦄, i ∈ s →...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not quite all, no. But, yes, I think that's a good thing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was there ever a Zulip thread about this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably not about iffs specifically. But it really is just an extension of the rule we've been applying elsewhere. Note that the reason I'm modifying this one in particular is because the one side implication isn't stated as a separate lemma with i an implicit argument. And since changing the binder implicitness fixes my use case without introducing a redundant lemma, we might as well.
|
✌️ YaelDillies can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
leanprover-community-bot-assistant
added
delegated
|
bors merge |
Dualise a few existing lemmas, protect `finset.sup_eq_bot_iff`/`finset.inf_eq_top_iff`, move `map_finset_sup`/`map_finset_inf` from `order.hom.lattice` to `data.finset.lattice`, make binders semi-implicit in `finset.disjoint_sup_left` and friends to avoid overly explicit binders in a local assumption after rewriting. Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <wieser.eric@gmail.com>
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded! The publicly hosted instance of bors-ng is deprecated and will go away soon. If you want to self-host your own instance, instructions are here. If you want to switch to GitHub's built-in merge queue, visit their help page. |
bors
bot
changed the title
Match leanprover-community/mathlib#18611 [`data.finset.lattice`@`9d684a893c52e1d6692a504a118bfccbae04feeb`..`2d44d6823a96f9c79b7d1ab185918377be663424`](https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib-port-status/file/data/finset/lattice?range=9d684a893c52e1d6692a504a118bfccbae04feeb..2d44d6823a96f9c79b7d1ab185918377be663424)
Match leanprover-community/mathlib#18611 [`data.finset.lattice`@`9d684a893c52e1d6692a504a118bfccbae04feeb`..`2d44d6823a96f9c79b7d1ab185918377be663424`](https://leanprover-community.github.io/mathlib-port-status/file/data/finset/lattice?range=9d684a893c52e1d6692a504a118bfccbae04feeb..2d44d6823a96f9c79b7d1ab185918377be663424)
Dualise a few existing lemmas, protect
finset.sup_eq_bot_iff/finset.inf_eq_top_iff, movemap_finset_sup/map_finset_inffromorder.hom.latticetodata.finset.lattice, make binders semi-implicit infinset.disjoint_sup_leftand friends to avoid overly explicit binders in a local assumption after rewriting.