-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 234
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] - chore: golf separable_iff_squarefree
#10236
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Excellent, thanks!
It's especially good to have that stray [GCDMonoid R]
now confined.
bors d+
✌️ alreadydone can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
As this PR is labelled bors merge |
In fact this theorem admits a proof without using any lemmas introduced in #10170. For this I had to remove some redundant [GCDMonoid R] assumptions in RingTheory/PrincipalIdealDomain.lean. Co-authored-by: Junyan Xu <junyanxu.math@gmail.com>
Pull request successfully merged into master. Build succeeded: |
separable_iff_squarefree
separable_iff_squarefree
In fact this theorem admits a proof without using any lemmas introduced in #10170. For this I had to remove some redundant [GCDMonoid R] assumptions in RingTheory/PrincipalIdealDomain.lean. Co-authored-by: Junyan Xu <junyanxu.math@gmail.com>
In fact this theorem admits a proof without using any lemmas introduced in #10170. For this I had to remove some redundant [GCDMonoid R] assumptions in RingTheory/PrincipalIdealDomain.lean. Co-authored-by: Junyan Xu <junyanxu.math@gmail.com>
In fact this theorem admits a proof without using any lemmas introduced in #10170.
For this I had to remove some redundant [GCDMonoid R] assumptions in RingTheory/PrincipalIdealDomain.lean.
DecompositionMonoid will be a separate PR; independently I think most results about IsCoprime can be generalized to IsRelPrime (defined as
∀ p, p ∣ x → p ∣ y → IsUnit p
), and maybe we should do that first ...