This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2024. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 295
feat(order/monotone/monovary): Monovarying functions are jointly monotone #17932
Closed
Closed
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d258e6f
feat(data/prod/basic): `prod.lex` is trichotomous
YaelDillies 1ed7c24
feat(order/monovary): Monovarying functions are jointly monotone
YaelDillies 64fa4e1
add todo
YaelDillies fecdf25
break long lines
YaelDillies 1c80b98
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into monovary_exists_mon…
YaelDillies 27cb263
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into monovary_exists_mon…
YaelDillies ddef753
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into monovary_exists_mon…
kim-em 31c43ae
explain definition of the order
YaelDillies File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
This feels like it might be a pretty annoying spelling if
ι
already has an order.What are your thoughts on making a
with_mono_vary_order f g ι
type synonym and instead stating this as something likeThere 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.
I thought about it too, but I would need four different type synonyms for the lemmas here, so I'm not convinced. The use case is deducing the Chebyshev sum inequality (pretty general and stated in terms of
monovary
in #13187) from the FKG inequality, where everything has an order (and is thus a priori less general). So the only point at which I will have this extralinear_order ι
instance will be locally in the proof of Chebyshev, where there is no pre-existing order onι
.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.
Why do you need four type synonyms?
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.
because the same type won't work for all four lemmas (I would need to insert
order_dual
in places).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.
I'd probably argue that at that point you don't need all four lemmas; only the two(?) that don't mention order_dual at all.
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.
I don't think that's an improvement over the current situation given my use case and the todo I am leaving (would you want yet another type synonym for families of functions?).
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.
In fact, I see it as such:
order_dual
).∃ [linear_order ι], ...
, they are free to make it a local instance, or place it onto a type synonym (which you indeed can create locally usingset
andclear_value
).