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(field_theory/normal): Splitting field is normal #5768

Closed
wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

@github-actions github-actions bot added 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 Jan 16, 2021
@github-actions github-actions 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 Jan 16, 2021
@github-actions
Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot added the merge-conflict Please `git merge origin/master` then a bot will remove this label. label Jan 16, 2021
@jcommelin jcommelin added the awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes label Jan 16, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the merge-conflict Please `git merge origin/master` then a bot will remove this label. label Jan 16, 2021
@tb65536 tb65536 added awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR and removed awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes labels Jan 16, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot added the merge-conflict Please `git merge origin/master` then a bot will remove this label. label Jan 17, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot removed the merge-conflict Please `git merge origin/master` then a bot will remove this label. label Jan 17, 2021
@jcommelin
Copy link
Member

Nice! The proof is longish, and seems to spend quite some time on setting up the right type class instances (unfortunately). I'm not sure if we can do much about that. But I'm wondering... do you think there are parts that could be made reusable by putting them in separate lemmas?
(I haven't opened the PR in VScode yet.)

@tb65536
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tb65536 commented Jan 18, 2021

It's hard to extract lemmas since a lot of the proof depends on the specific setup. One possibility that I see is this lemma which would shorten the proof of suffices : nonempty (D →ₐ[F] E),

lemma lem1 {F E K : Type*} [field F] [field E] [field K] [algebra F E] [algebra E K] [algebra F K]
  [finite_dimensional F E] [finite_dimensional F K]
  [is_scalar_tower F E K] (ϕ : K →ₐ[F] E) : finite_dimensional.findim E K = 1 :=
begin
  have nat_lemma : ∀ a b c : ℕ, a * b = c → c ≤ a → 0 < c → b = 1,
  { intros a b c h1 h2 h3, nlinarith },
  exact nat_lemma _ _ _ (finite_dimensional.findim_mul_findim F E K)
    (linear_map.findim_le_findim_of_injective (show function.injective ϕ.to_linear_map,
      from ϕ.to_ring_hom.injective)) finite_dimensional.findim_pos,
end

(I guess you can weaken the hypotheses to the same as for findim_mul_findim)

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

@github-actions github-actions bot 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 Jan 20, 2021
bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
Proves that splitting fields are normal.



Co-authored-by: tb65536 <tb65536@users.noreply.github.com>
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Jan 20, 2021

Build failed (retrying...):

bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
Proves that splitting fields are normal.



Co-authored-by: tb65536 <tb65536@users.noreply.github.com>
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Jan 20, 2021

Build failed (retrying...):

bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
Proves that splitting fields are normal.



Co-authored-by: tb65536 <tb65536@users.noreply.github.com>
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Jan 20, 2021

Build failed:

@jcommelin
Copy link
Member

Sorry, this file needs to be updated to the new minpoly syntax.

bors r-

bors d+

@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Jan 20, 2021

✌️ tb65536 can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with bors r+. More detailed instructions are available here.

@robertylewis robertylewis added awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes and removed ready-to-merge All that is left is for bors to build and merge this PR. (Remember you need to say `bors r+`.) labels Jan 20, 2021
@tb65536
Copy link
Collaborator Author

tb65536 commented Jan 20, 2021

bors r+

bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 20, 2021
Proves that splitting fields are normal.



Co-authored-by: tb65536 <tb65536@users.noreply.github.com>
@bors
Copy link

bors bot commented Jan 20, 2021

Pull request successfully merged into master.

Build succeeded:

@bors bors bot changed the title feat(field_theory/normal): Splitting field is normal [Merged by Bors] - feat(field_theory/normal): Splitting field is normal Jan 20, 2021
@bors bors bot closed this Jan 20, 2021
@bors bors bot deleted the splitting_field_is_normal branch January 20, 2021 20:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting-author A reviewer has asked the author a question or requested changes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants