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

[PARTIAL] Functional equational approach based on Pace Nielsen's proof #577

Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lyphyser
Copy link
Contributor

I have formalized everything except the case 1 check and constructing the final function based on extensions, but don't have time to finish it, so posting this so someone can maybe finish it.

It's designed to constructively create the counterexample and represents the free abelian group using DFinsupp; it would be nice to cut down on that setup code, but I'm not sure if there is a shorter way of doing it especially constructively.

The partial sets are E are defined as partial functions, again using DFinsupp going to an Option type; the "fup" def lifts them to Option -> Option functions that are none on none.

The construction follows the paper and there are some additional notes on why Case 1 holds, which may help in designing its proof.

@teorth
Copy link
Owner

teorth commented Oct 14, 2024

I'm inclined to leave this PR unmerged for now until someone reclaims #506, and they can decide to what extent they will build off of this one. (Though one argument in favor of merging now is that it will avoid merge conflicts and build issues later on. So perhaps one can revisit this issue in a few days if nobody ends up reclaiming #506.)

@Shreyas4991
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm inclined to leave this PR unmerged for now until someone reclaims #506, and they can decide to what extent they will build off of this one. (Though one argument in favor of merging now is that it will avoid merge conflicts and build issues later on. So perhaps one can revisit this issue in a few days if nobody ends up reclaiming #506.)

In that case I will mark it as a draft PR

@Shreyas4991 Shreyas4991 marked this pull request as draft October 16, 2024 14:02
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.

4 participants