[Merged by Bors] - refactor(order/lattice): adjust proofs to avoid choice #2666
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
b-mehta
added
the
awaiting-review
github-actions
bot
added
ready-to-merge
|
Oh wait, I misread. You wanted feedback on whether the term mode or |
bryangingechen
added
awaiting-review
|
I'd prefer to avoid any use of |
|
@robertylewis What counts as "really necessary"? Should all the |
|
If you want these proofs to stay intuitionistic, then I recommend adding a test running |
|
I think the term mode proof in |
|
@urkud Is there a way to have Lean throw an error (so that CI will actually fail) if |
|
@b-mehta I think this is ready to go unless you want to add tests. I'll leave that up to you. |
|
✌️ b-mehta can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
|
bors r+ |
bors bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 14, 2020
For foundational category theoretic reasons, I'd like these lattice properties to avoid choice. In particular, I'd like the proof here: #2665 to be intuitionistic. For most of them it was very easy, eg changing `finish` to `simp`. For `sup_assoc` and `inf_assoc` it's a bit more complex though - for `inf_assoc` I wrote out a term mode proof, and for `sup_assoc` I used `ifinish`. I realise `ifinish` is deprecated because it isn't always intuitionistic, but in this case it did give an intuitionistic proof. I think both should be proved the same way, but I'm including one of each to see which is preferred.
bryangingechen
added
ready-to-merge
|
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
bors
bot
changed the title
anrddh
pushed a commit
to anrddh/mathlib
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2020
…mmunity#2666) For foundational category theoretic reasons, I'd like these lattice properties to avoid choice. In particular, I'd like the proof here: leanprover-community#2665 to be intuitionistic. For most of them it was very easy, eg changing `finish` to `simp`. For `sup_assoc` and `inf_assoc` it's a bit more complex though - for `inf_assoc` I wrote out a term mode proof, and for `sup_assoc` I used `ifinish`. I realise `ifinish` is deprecated because it isn't always intuitionistic, but in this case it did give an intuitionistic proof. I think both should be proved the same way, but I'm including one of each to see which is preferred.
anrddh
pushed a commit
to anrddh/mathlib
that referenced
this pull request
May 16, 2020
…mmunity#2666) For foundational category theoretic reasons, I'd like these lattice properties to avoid choice. In particular, I'd like the proof here: leanprover-community#2665 to be intuitionistic. For most of them it was very easy, eg changing `finish` to `simp`. For `sup_assoc` and `inf_assoc` it's a bit more complex though - for `inf_assoc` I wrote out a term mode proof, and for `sup_assoc` I used `ifinish`. I realise `ifinish` is deprecated because it isn't always intuitionistic, but in this case it did give an intuitionistic proof. I think both should be proved the same way, but I'm including one of each to see which is preferred.
cipher1024
pushed a commit
to cipher1024/mathlib
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2022
…mmunity#2666) For foundational category theoretic reasons, I'd like these lattice properties to avoid choice. In particular, I'd like the proof here: leanprover-community#2665 to be intuitionistic. For most of them it was very easy, eg changing `finish` to `simp`. For `sup_assoc` and `inf_assoc` it's a bit more complex though - for `inf_assoc` I wrote out a term mode proof, and for `sup_assoc` I used `ifinish`. I realise `ifinish` is deprecated because it isn't always intuitionistic, but in this case it did give an intuitionistic proof. I think both should be proved the same way, but I'm including one of each to see which is preferred.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For foundational category theoretic reasons, I'd like these lattice properties to avoid choice.
In particular, I'd like the proof here: #2665 to be intuitionistic.
For most of them it was very easy, eg changing
finishtosimp. Forsup_assocandinf_associt's a bit more complex though - forinf_assocI wrote out a term mode proof, and forsup_assocI usedifinish. I realiseifinishis deprecated because it isn't always intuitionistic, but in this case it did give an intuitionistic proof. I think both should be proved the same way, but I'm including one of each to see which is preferred.