Zulip Chat Archive
Stream: general
Topic: left/right for source/target
Yury G. Kudryashov (Mar 05 2021 at 17:06):
Some lemmas about docs#local_equiv and docs#local_homeomorph deal with e.source ∩ s
/ e.target ∩ t
, some with s ∩ e.source
/s ∩ e.target
. I'm trying to define local_homeomorph.piecewise
and quite often I have to rw inter_comm
to apply the lemma I want. Some lemma, e.g., docs#local_equiv.image_inter_source_eq, mix "left" and "right" conventions.
@Sebastien Gouezel You're the author of local_equiv
. Is there some convention I miss? If no, what do you think about normalizing the lemmas to always put e.source
/e.target
on one side of ∩
?
Yury G. Kudryashov (Mar 05 2021 at 17:07):
See #6555 for local_equiv.piecewise
.
Yury G. Kudryashov (Mar 05 2021 at 17:14):
Another question: there are many ways to say that t : set β
is the image of s : set α
under e : local_equiv α β
when restricted to e.source
/e.target
.
This relation is closed under normal set operations and in the case of a local_homeomorph
it is also closed under closure
/frontier
/interior
. What do you think about giving it a name?
Sebastien Gouezel (Mar 05 2021 at 17:37):
Sure, it is a good idea to try to normalize. I have tried to be coherent when writing these files, but I have probably missed some places. Also, when you use lemmas from other parts of mathlib, conventions are not always the same, so it ended a little bit random. Choosing one side once and for all would definitely be an improvement!
Sebastien Gouezel (Mar 05 2021 at 17:37):
Yury G. Kudryashov said:
Another question: there are many ways to say that
t : set β
is the image ofs : set α
undere : local_equiv α β
when restricted toe.source
/e.target
.
This relation is closed under normal set operations and in the case of alocal_homeomorph
it is also closed underclosure
/frontier
/interior
. What do you think about giving it a name?
Yes, that's a good idea!
Yury G. Kudryashov (Mar 05 2021 at 17:39):
How would you name it?
Sebastien Gouezel (Mar 05 2021 at 17:48):
t = local_equiv.image e s
? I know it does not really correspond to set.image
, but still it sounds ok to me.
Yury G. Kudryashov (Mar 05 2021 at 18:27):
This is not an equality t = f s
, it's t ∩ e.target = e '' (s ∩ e.source)
. local_equiv.is_image e s t
?
Sebastien Gouezel (Mar 05 2021 at 19:27):
I thought you wanted t
to already be a subset of e.target
, but I agree your version is better as it is more symmetric. Yes, e.is_image s t
looks good.
Eric Wieser (Mar 05 2021 at 19:33):
Is this at all similar to docs#set.bij_on?
Eric Wieser (Mar 05 2021 at 19:34):
Suggesting perhaps e.bij_on
for consistency
Yury G. Kudryashov (Mar 06 2021 at 02:58):
docs#local_equiv.bij_on already exists
Last updated: Dec 20 2023 at 11:08 UTC