| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Added lemmas `big_enum_cond`, `big_enum` and `big_enumP` to handle more
explicitly big ops iterating over explicit enumerations in a `finType`.
The previous practice was to rely on the convertibility between
`enum A` and `filter A (index_enum T)`, sometimes explicitly via the
`filter_index_enum` equality, more often than not implicitly.
Both are likely to fail after the integration of `finmap`, as the
`choiceType` theory can’t guarantee that the order in selected
enumerations is consistent.
For this reason `big_enum` and the related (but currently unused)
`big_image` lemmas are restricted to the abelian case. The `big_enumP`
lemma can be used to handle enumerations in the non-abelian case, as
explained in the `bigop.v` internal documentation.
The Changelog entry enjoins clients to stop relying on either
`filter_index_enum` and convertibility (though this PR still provides
both), and warns about the restriction of the `big_image` lemma set to
the abelian case, as it it a possible source of incompatibility.
|
|
Replaced the legacy generalised induction idiom with a more robust one
that does not rely on the `{-2}` numerical occurrence selector, using
either new helper lemmas `ubnP` and `ltnSE` or a specific `nat`
induction principle `ltn_ind`.
Added (non-strict in)equality induction helper lemmas
Added `ubnP[lg]?eq` helper lemmas that abstract an integer expression
along with some (in)equality, in preparation for some generalised
induction. Note that while `ubnPleq` is very similar to `ubnP` (indeed
`ubnP M` is basically `ubnPleq M.+1`), `ubnPgeq` is used to remember
that the inductive value remains below the initial one.
Used the change log to give notice to users to update the generalised
induction idioms in their proofs to one of the new forms before
Mathcomp 1.11.
|
|
|
|
Like injectivity lemmas, instances of cancellation lemmas (whose
conclusion is `cancel ? ?`, `{in ?, cancel ? ?}`, `pcancel`, or
`ocancel`) are passed to
generic lemmas such as `canRL` or `canLR_in`. Thus such lemmas should
not have trailing on-demand implicits _just before_ the `cancel`
conclusion, as these would be inconvenient to insert (requiring
essentially an explicit eta-expansion).
We therefore use `Arguments` or `Prenex Implicits` directives to make
all such arguments maximally inserted implicits. We don’t, however make
other arguments implicit, so as not to spoil direct instantiation of
the lemmas (in, e.g., `rewrite -[y](invmK injf)`).
We have also tried to do this with lemmas whose statement matches a
`cancel`, i.e., ending in `forall x, g (E[x]) = x` (where pattern
unification will pick up `f = fun x => E[x]`).
We also adjusted implicits of a few stray injectivity
lemmas, and defined constants.
We provide a shorthand for reindexing a bigop with a permutation.
Finally we used the new implicit signatures to simplify proofs that
use injectivity or cancellation lemmas.
|
|
```
Warning: Adding and removing hints in the core database implicitly is
deprecated. Please specify a hint database.
[implicit-core-hint-db,deprecated]
```
|
|
See the discussion here:
https://github.com/math-comp/math-comp/pull/242#discussion_r233778114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was emitting a deprecation warning and will soon be removed from Coq.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
