-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 380
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
feat(Data/Nat/Find): Nat.find_mono_of_le and Nat.find_congr #22811
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
helper for not juggling generalize_proofs
PR summary f22fa274d0Import changes for modified filesNo significant changes to the import graph Import changes for all files
|
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, this seems reasonable.
maintainer merge
🚀 Pull request has been placed on the maintainer queue by Ruben-VandeVelde. |
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.
The declaration itself looks reasonable otherwise. Thanks!
bors d+
✌️ pechersky can now approve this pull request. To approve and merge a pull request, simply reply with |
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.
Please update the PR description.
I claim that actually generalize_proofs
probably was never needed, and simp_rw
would have worked fine; but I don't know your original use case.
Co-authored-by: Eric Wieser <[email protected]>
You're right:
|
Both strong versions (p and q agree below some x) and weak (p and q agree everywhere)
helper for not juggling generalize_proofs