-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Fix a few minor Lean misformalisations #238
Merged
Merged
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
The error was a simple typo: `<` instead of `=`.
The problem was that `(a * b : Fin 3 → ℝ)` first coerces `a` and `b` to vectors and then uses the multiplication on vectors (which is pointwise multiplication). Thus the group structure declared in `hGgrp` was completely ignored. This could have been fixed by writing `(↑(a * b) : Fin 3 → ℝ)` but I think it is much clearer to use an embedding and not depend upon arcane details Lean's coercion elaboration.
eric-wieser
reviewed
Oct 22, 2024
eric-wieser
approved these changes
Oct 22, 2024
This is a slightly subjective fix. The issue is that `f > 0` does not mean that `f` is positive everywhere; it means that `f` is non-negative everywhere and positive at at least one point. I believe this is what is intended in the informal statement. The issue is slightly confounded by the fact that if for all `x`, `deriv f x > f x` and `f x` is non-negative then the derivative is strictly positive, and thus `f` is strictly monotone, and thus being non-negative implies being strictly positive everywhere. So there is no mathematical change to the meaning here but I think this is a more faithful representation of the question. It should also be noted that the fact that there is no mathematical change depends upon not-quite-totally-trivial facts. I have also taken the opportunity to rewrite question with slightly improved style.
The statement should be that the sum diverges, rather than that it has no finite limit (even though these are easily equivalent given the latent positivity hypotheses).
GeorgeTsoukalas
approved these changes
Oct 23, 2024
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.
Thanks for the contribution Oliver!
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.
No description provided.