Add properties of non-divisibility to Algebra.Properties.Magma.Divisibility
#2469
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
JacquesCarette
approved these changes
Sep 1, 2024
|
Yes, I'd say that both points you raise are bugs that should be fixed (but in separate PRs). Make new issues? |
Well, the second is somehow already covered by the quoted issue (I'm not clear about the history of these things, nor how these examples here somehow slipped through the net thrown by #2341 ?) I've updated the preamble to link to a new issue for the first one. |
MatthewDaggitt
requested changes
Sep 3, 2024
MatthewDaggitt
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #2306
NB.
Relation.Binary.Definitions._Respects₂_seems to exchange 'left' and 'right' in its left/right projections? UPDATED:Relation.Binary.Definitions._Respects₂_seems to exchange 'left' and 'right' in its left/right projections? #2471∣∣-resp*-≈lemmas concerning_∣∣_all explicitly mention the equality_≈_, while none of the others (new, and existing) do? cf. Consistently add the equality afterrespin proof names. #2341 Is this the occasion to remedy that state of affairs (in whichever direction we think: @MatthewDaggitt 's preference on that issue is to retain the symbol, so some additional renaming/deprecation would be necessary here...) UPDATED now FIXED, but it does feel like a lot of extra 'ink'?