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] - feat(archive/imo): formalize IMO 1964 problem 1 #4935

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

kbuzzard
Copy link
Member

@kbuzzard kbuzzard commented Nov 7, 2020

This is an alternative approach to #4369, where progress seems to have stalled. I avoid integers completely by working with nat.modeq, and deal with the cases of n mod 3 by simply breaking into three cases.


@kbuzzard kbuzzard requested a review from lacker November 7, 2020 16:53
@kbuzzard
Copy link
Member Author

kbuzzard commented Nov 7, 2020

@lacker you're the expert here -- I tried to follow your suggestions in the other thread about sticking as closely as possible to the actual question wording, when formalising the question. Let me know if there are other IMO question conventions I should be abiding by.

archive/imo/imo1964_q1.lean Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/data/nat/modeq.lean Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
archive/imo/imo1964_q1.lean Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
archive/imo/imo1964_q1.lean Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
kbuzzard and others added 4 commits November 7, 2020 19:23
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
Co-authored-by: Johan Commelin <johan@commelin.net>
@bryangingechen bryangingechen added awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR imo Formalisation of an IMO problem labels Nov 7, 2020
@lacker
Copy link
Collaborator

lacker commented Nov 9, 2020

Looks good to me from an "imo question conventions" point of view.

Copy link
Collaborator

@bryangingechen bryangingechen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM.
bors d+

src/data/nat/modeq.lean Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Nov 11, 2020

✌️ kbuzzard can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with bors r+. More detailed instructions are available here.

@bryangingechen bryangingechen added delegated The PR author may merge after reviewing final suggestions. and removed awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR labels Nov 11, 2020
@bryangingechen
Copy link
Collaborator

bors r+

@github-actions github-actions bot added the ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.) label Nov 12, 2020
bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 12, 2020
This is an alternative approach to #4369, where progress seems to have stalled. I avoid integers completely by working with `nat.modeq`, and deal with the cases of n mod 3 by simply breaking into three cases.



Co-authored-by: Bryan Gin-ge Chen <bryangingechen@gmail.com>
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Nov 13, 2020

Pull request successfully merged into master.

Build succeeded:

@bors bors bot changed the title feat(archive/imo): formalize IMO 1964 problem 1 [Merged by Bors] - feat(archive/imo): formalize IMO 1964 problem 1 Nov 13, 2020
@bors bors bot closed this Nov 13, 2020
@bors bors bot deleted the 1964_imo_1_again branch November 13, 2020 00:39
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
delegated The PR author may merge after reviewing final suggestions. imo Formalisation of an IMO problem ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants