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: Add mul_inv and inv_mul versions of div_le_one_of_le #10597

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

girving
Copy link
Collaborator

@girving girving commented Feb 15, 2024

These are exactly div_le_one_of_le with a / b replaced by a * b⁻¹ and b⁻¹ * a.

They come up frequently because some tactics produce inverses as normal forms over division. The iff versions with 0 < b already exist as mul_inv_le_one_iff and inv_mul_le_one_iff; the point of these is to have a weaker nonnegativity assumption on b.


Open in Gitpod

@girving girving added awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR t-algebra Algebra (groups, rings, fields etc) labels Feb 15, 2024
@girving
Copy link
Collaborator Author

girving commented Feb 15, 2024

Possibly I should add inv_mul_le_one_of_le too?

@YaelDillies
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes, and iff versions assuming 0 < b. Also please edit the PR title, I cannot comprehend it 😄

@girving girving changed the title feat: mul_inv_le_one_of_le is an a * b⁻¹ div_le_one_of_le feat: mul_inv_le_one_of_le is an a * b⁻¹ version of div_le_one_of_le Feb 15, 2024
@girving
Copy link
Collaborator Author

girving commented Feb 15, 2024

Is that title better?

I'll add the inv_mul version now. The iff versions already exist: mul inv, inv mul.

@girving girving changed the title feat: mul_inv_le_one_of_le is an a * b⁻¹ version of div_le_one_of_le feat: Add mul_inv and inv_mul versions of div_le_one_of_le Feb 15, 2024
@YaelDillies
Copy link
Collaborator

Now that's better!

@girving
Copy link
Collaborator Author

girving commented Feb 19, 2024

@YaelDillies: Would you be up for a review and approval if it seems reasonable?

Co-authored-by: Yaël Dillies <yael.dillies@gmail.com>
Copy link
Collaborator

@YaelDillies YaelDillies left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks!

maintainer merge

@girving
Copy link
Collaborator Author

girving commented Feb 22, 2024

What’s the next step after “maintainer merge”?

@YaelDillies
Copy link
Collaborator

Nothing on your part. A maintainer will merge the PR or come up with a comment I hadn't thought of.

@urkud
Copy link
Member

urkud commented Feb 22, 2024

Thanks! 🎉
bors merge

@github-actions github-actions bot added ready-to-merge This PR has been sent to bors. and removed awaiting-review The author would like community review of the PR labels Feb 22, 2024
mathlib-bors bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 22, 2024
)

These are exactly `div_le_one_of_le` with `a / b` replaced by `a * b⁻¹` and `b⁻¹ * a`.

They come up frequently because some tactics produce inverses as normal forms over division.  The iff versions with `0 < b` already exist as `mul_inv_le_one_iff` and `inv_mul_le_one_iff`; the point of these is to have a weaker nonnegativity assumption on `b`.
@mathlib-bors
Copy link

mathlib-bors bot commented Feb 22, 2024

Pull request successfully merged into master.

Build succeeded:

@mathlib-bors mathlib-bors bot changed the title feat: Add mul_inv and inv_mul versions of div_le_one_of_le [Merged by Bors] - feat: Add mul_inv and inv_mul versions of div_le_one_of_le Feb 22, 2024
@mathlib-bors mathlib-bors bot closed this Feb 22, 2024
@mathlib-bors mathlib-bors bot deleted the GI_mul_inv branch February 22, 2024 10:45
thorimur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2024
)

These are exactly `div_le_one_of_le` with `a / b` replaced by `a * b⁻¹` and `b⁻¹ * a`.

They come up frequently because some tactics produce inverses as normal forms over division.  The iff versions with `0 < b` already exist as `mul_inv_le_one_iff` and `inv_mul_le_one_iff`; the point of these is to have a weaker nonnegativity assumption on `b`.
thorimur pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 26, 2024
)

These are exactly `div_le_one_of_le` with `a / b` replaced by `a * b⁻¹` and `b⁻¹ * a`.

They come up frequently because some tactics produce inverses as normal forms over division.  The iff versions with `0 < b` already exist as `mul_inv_le_one_iff` and `inv_mul_le_one_iff`; the point of these is to have a weaker nonnegativity assumption on `b`.
riccardobrasca pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 1, 2024
)

These are exactly `div_le_one_of_le` with `a / b` replaced by `a * b⁻¹` and `b⁻¹ * a`.

They come up frequently because some tactics produce inverses as normal forms over division.  The iff versions with `0 < b` already exist as `mul_inv_le_one_iff` and `inv_mul_le_one_iff`; the point of these is to have a weaker nonnegativity assumption on `b`.
dagurtomas pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 22, 2024
)

These are exactly `div_le_one_of_le` with `a / b` replaced by `a * b⁻¹` and `b⁻¹ * a`.

They come up frequently because some tactics produce inverses as normal forms over division.  The iff versions with `0 < b` already exist as `mul_inv_le_one_iff` and `inv_mul_le_one_iff`; the point of these is to have a weaker nonnegativity assumption on `b`.
Louddy pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 15, 2024
)

These are exactly `div_le_one_of_le` with `a / b` replaced by `a * b⁻¹` and `b⁻¹ * a`.

They come up frequently because some tactics produce inverses as normal forms over division.  The iff versions with `0 < b` already exist as `mul_inv_le_one_iff` and `inv_mul_le_one_iff`; the point of these is to have a weaker nonnegativity assumption on `b`.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ready-to-merge This PR has been sent to bors. t-algebra Algebra (groups, rings, fields etc)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants