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

State and prove Theorem 2.36 #202

Merged
merged 23 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024
Merged

State and prove Theorem 2.36 #202

merged 23 commits into from
Oct 7, 2024

Conversation

jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor

@jscanvic jscanvic commented Oct 2, 2024

@Shreyas4991
Copy link
Collaborator

@jscanvic : since this is a draft PR, GitHub won't automatically show this, but an upstream PR might have introduced merge conflicts due to the notation change for Magma. Could you check if merging the main branch into your branch works?

@jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor Author

jscanvic commented Oct 5, 2024

@Shreyas4991 It appears to be working after changing the notation.

@Shreyas4991
Copy link
Collaborator

Shreyas4991 commented Oct 5, 2024

The PR is marked as a draft. The CI will automatically run when the PR is not a draft anymore. I have manually run it for now.

@jscanvic jscanvic marked this pull request as ready for review October 7, 2024 20:22
@jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor Author

jscanvic commented Oct 7, 2024

awaiting-review

@github-actions github-actions bot added the awaiting-review the PR passes CI and is ready for review label Oct 7, 2024
@jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor Author

jscanvic commented Oct 7, 2024

Uhm apparently the build fails due to 4 newly added theorems in Subgraph.lean which depend on the previous formula for Equation28393. I'm not sure what the way forward is. Keeping the previous one and changing the number for the fixed one?

@Shreyas4991
Copy link
Collaborator

Shreyas4991 commented Oct 7, 2024

is the new equation 23893 a completely different equation from the previous one. If so, how does giving it a different number and retaining the old equation 23893 affect this PR?

@jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor Author

jscanvic commented Oct 7, 2024

The two equations are indeed completely different. As far as I can tell, giving the new one a new number would simply require changing it in the blueprint infinite_models.tex.

@Shreyas4991
Copy link
Collaborator

Then this would be the path of least resistance. I would recommend it.

@jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor Author

jscanvic commented Oct 7, 2024

Alright! I've made the changes from 28393 to 28394.

@teorth
Copy link
Owner

teorth commented Oct 7, 2024

Actually the equation x = (((y ◇ y) ◇ y) ◇ x) ◇ (y ◇ z) is numbered 28770, and x = (((x ◇ x) ◇ x) ◇ y) ◇ (x ◇ z) is equation 28381. The full list can be found at https://github.com/teorth/equational_theories/blob/main/data/eq_size5.txt . Sorry for screwing up the numbering previously, but this should be the canonical numbering to use going forward.

@jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor Author

jscanvic commented Oct 7, 2024

My bad. I wasn't aware of the extended numbering. It should be good now!

@teorth
Copy link
Owner

teorth commented Oct 7, 2024

Small blueprint issue - one of the references to 28393 in the blueprint now has to be renumbered. Sorry, that should be the last thing and then we can merge!

@jscanvic
Copy link
Contributor Author

jscanvic commented Oct 7, 2024

Done!

@teorth teorth merged commit 75b8b81 into teorth:main Oct 7, 2024
2 checks passed
@jscanvic jscanvic deleted the theorem2-36 branch October 7, 2024 23:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting-review the PR passes CI and is ready for review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

INFINITE: State and prove Theorem 2.36 (second Kisielewicz law) of the blueprint in Lean.
3 participants