Zulip Chat Archive
Stream: general
Topic: star_ring
Scott Morrison (Sep 06 2020 at 07:12):
Do we yet have anything about *-algebras? I'd like some! I know we have src#ring_invo (which I've just tidied up a bit in #4052).
Scott Morrison (Sep 06 2020 at 07:14):
I was imagining something like:
variables {R : Type} [ring R] [star_ring R]
example (r s : R) : (r * s)† = s† * r† := ...
Scott Morrison (Sep 06 2020 at 07:15):
It would be fun to, e.g. prove Bell's inequality, or define Banach algebras...
Frédéric Dupuis (Sep 07 2020 at 00:15):
I think it would be nice to have some sort of has_star
typeclass that could be used for this, with instances for complex conjugation, Hermitian adjoints, etc.
Scott Morrison (Sep 07 2020 at 03:11):
I wonder how much value has_star
itself actually has, vs. starting at star_ring
. Are the examples of less-than-rings which we will want to talk about star(=linear, antimultiplicative involutions) on? I guess I have no complaint about star_ring
only depending on semiring
, rather than ring
.
Scott Morrison (Sep 07 2020 at 03:12):
I also feel pretty strongly about not making global notation for this. Depending on which topic of mathematics I'm thinking about today, I might feel strongly that this operation should be written as star, bar, or dagger. :-)
Johan Commelin (Sep 07 2020 at 04:21):
But the bar will look funny in unicode, no matter what, right?
Scott Morrison (Sep 07 2020 at 04:50):
feeling strongly about notation rarely leads to being happy in lean (or life, for that matter)
Alex J. Best (Sep 07 2020 at 05:00):
I was kinda surprised this works to be honest:
variables {K : Type} [field K] (x y : K)
def bar : K → K := sorry
notation `̅` a := bar a
#check ̅x
#check ̅(1 : K)
of course the second one looks silly, but ̅x
isn't so bad in vscode.
Frédéric Dupuis (Sep 07 2020 at 23:17):
Yeah, actually we probably want to be flexible regarding notation on this one!
Eric Wieser (Nov 03 2020 at 14:09):
I've tried to revive the star parts of @Scott Morrison's PR in #4886
Frédéric Dupuis (Nov 03 2020 at 16:30):
Were those PRs actually dropped, or did @Scott Morrison just not have time yet?
Eric Wieser (Nov 03 2020 at 16:47):
I think he's just been busy
Eric Wieser (Nov 03 2020 at 16:48):
I thought I'd try splitting them up to help speed things along
Scott Morrison (Nov 04 2020 at 03:47):
I hadn't had time, but definitely come back to them. Happy for any help, however!
Eric Wieser (Nov 04 2020 at 10:28):
Should I take that as "I don't object to you splitting out that PR and having to deal with merging it back in later"?
Last updated: Dec 20 2023 at 11:08 UTC