Skip to content

Conversation

@affeldt-aist
Copy link
Member

@affeldt-aist affeldt-aist commented Dec 28, 2022

Motivation for this change

minor addition, used in the dev of measure theory

Things done/to do

TODO before merge: doppeD, doppeB

  • added corresponding entries in CHANGELOG_UNRELEASED.md
    - [ ] added corresponding documentation in the headers
Automatic note to reviewers

Read this Checklist and put a milestone if possible.

@affeldt-aist affeldt-aist requested a review from proux01 December 28, 2022 15:20
@affeldt-aist
Copy link
Member Author

Is it ok if we have adde_def_oppeD and oppeD with fin_num as hypothesis? Same for oppeB.
If it is ok, we can add the versions for doppeD and doppeB and we are done.
There is certainly something more systematic and significant to be done about adde_def
but that can maybe be the purpose of another PR.

@affeldt-aist
Copy link
Member Author

Is it ok if we have adde_def_oppeD and oppeD with fin_num as hypothesis? Same for oppeB. If it is ok, we can add the versions for doppeD and doppeB and we are done. There is certainly something more systematic and significant to be done about adde_def but that can maybe be the purpose of another PR.

"Something more systematic" might go through the introduction of a more generic notation allowing to write
?( x + y). @CohenCyril

I gave it a try with the following reserved notation:

Reserved Notation "'?(' x '+' y ')'" (at level 0, x, y at level 1,
  format "'?(' x  +  y ')'").

One needs then at add parenteses here and there (e.g., ?( (- x) + y))
and it conflicts with SSReflect tactics such as rewrite ?(f x).

There is certainly a better way to declare this notation.

Shall we issue about that and care later?

@CohenCyril
Copy link
Member

CohenCyril commented Feb 3, 2023

The question of the notation ?(x + y) is orthogonal, this PR should proceed independently.
(It's ok to introduce and preserve an alias x +? y := ?(x+ y) later on.

However, for this PR, I advocate that the primary lemmas should be the ones with hypothesis x +? y rather than finitude, and hence have oppeD x y : x +? y -> - (x + y) = - x - y.

For the summations, it's the same, the first and primary lemma should be sumeN and use {in P &, forall i j, x i +? x j} instead as usual for summation on general indices.

Copy link
Member

@CohenCyril CohenCyril left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@affeldt-aist affeldt-aist merged commit 6d78dec into math-comp:master Feb 5, 2023
hoheinzollern pushed a commit to hoheinzollern/analysis that referenced this pull request Mar 9, 2023
* sumeN, renaming, generalization
proux01 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 23, 2023
* sumeN, renaming, generalization
proux01 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2023
* sumeN, renaming, generalization
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants