# Zulip Chat Archive

## Stream: general

### Topic: universe issue when providing new instance

#### Julian Külshammer (Feb 28 2021 at 19:32):

In #6481 I attempted to remove the commutativity assumption on the ground (semi)ring when constructing the `mv_polynomial`

ring. It was no problem removing the commutativity assumption from the definition but as soon as I added the semiring instance, much later in the file `eval\2_eta`

broke which to me seems unrelated and I read the error message as there being a problem with universes, though I don't understand why. Can someone clarify why this happens and how this can be solved?

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 19:41):

Try adding an explicit type annotation to `C`

?

#### Julian Külshammer (Feb 28 2021 at 19:46):

When it is defined or where it breaks?

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 19:48):

`@[simp] lemma eval₂_eta (p : mv_polynomial σ R) : eval₂ (C : R →+* mv_polynomial σ R) X p = p :=`

fixes the first problem.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 19:48):

I am assuming that this wasn't needed before. What has happened?

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 19:49):

The elaborator gets stuck because it can't invoke typeclass inference to convert comm_semiring to semiring?

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 19:50):

The second error is more scary:

```
type mismatch at application
eval₂_comp_left (map g)
term
map g
has type
mv_polynomial ?m_1 S₁ →+* mv_polynomial ?m_1 S₂ : Type (max (max ? v) ? w)
but is expected to have type
?m_1 →+* ?m_2 : Type (max ? ?)
```

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 19:54):

The elaborator is very bad when it comes to bundled homs with a domain that is itself a bundled hom, from what I recall

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 19:56):

It used to work :-(

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 19:57):

The error is now on `eval₂_comp_left`

on line 748.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 20:02):

` refine eq.trans (eval₂_comp_left (map g) (C.comp f) X p) _,`

in tactic mode works where line 748 in the link above used to fail. `rw`

also fails, it's not often I use `eq.trans`

! What is going on here?

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 20:31):

I think this is the heart of the problem for the next error:

```
type mismatch at application
(eval₂_hom ?m_5 g).comp f
term
f
has type
@ring_hom ?m_1 (@mv_polynomial σ ?m_2 (@comm_semiring.to_semiring ?m_2 ?m_3)) (@comm_semiring.to_semiring ?m_1 ?m_4)
(@comm_semiring.to_semiring (@mv_polynomial σ ?m_2 (@comm_semiring.to_semiring ?m_2 ?m_3)) ?m_5) : Type (max
?
u_1
?)
but is expected to have type
@ring_hom ?m_1 (@mv_polynomial σ ?m_2 (@comm_semiring.to_semiring ?m_2 ?m_3)) (@comm_semiring.to_semiring ?m_1 ?m_4)
(@mv_polynomial.semiring ?m_2 σ (@comm_semiring.to_semiring ?m_2 ?m_3)) : Type (max ? u_1 ?)
```

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 20:35):

I'm having exterior_algebra flashbacks

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 20:35):

Is something irreducible?

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 20:38):

The PR literally just changes [comm_semiring] to [semiring] in the definition of `mv_polynomial`

and adds an instance

```
instance [semiring R]: semiring (mv_polynomial σ R) := add_monoid_algebra.semiring
```

and that's it

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 20:39):

Yeah, but that might be enough to make an existing irreducible change from not a problem to very much a problem

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 20:40):

I ran into some very similar looking problems when I weakened `direct_sum`

from requiring add_comm_group to add_comm_monoid

#### Eric Wieser (Feb 28 2021 at 20:40):

Which were only really resolved by doing the weakening in even more places

#### Julian Külshammer (Feb 28 2021 at 20:51):

Thanks for looking into this. Note that changing [comm_semiring] to [semiring] didn't break anything yet, only the new instance did.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 22:58):

OK I managed to fix everything and I pushed, but goodness knows what other trouble we'll run into.

#### Julian Külshammer (Feb 28 2021 at 23:00):

Thanks a lot I'll continue working on it tomorrow.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 23:01):

If R is a `comm_semiring`

, then we have two routes to `semiring (mv_polynomial S R)`

, one via "R is a semiring and hence mv polys are a semiring", and one via "mv_polynomials are a comm_semiring and hence a semiring". Are these defeq? If not then this is a problem.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 23:02):

This issue no doubt shows up all over the place -- some random algebraic functor will send commutative X's to commutative X's and general X's to X's and there will be a corresponding diamond. Is it always defeq in mathlib? What happens when it isn't?

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 23:09):

It just occurred to me that perhaps another solution is to decrease the priority of the semiring -> mv_poly semiring instance.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 23:14):

Hmm, they do seem to be defeq in this case. I don't understand why I have to add the type ascriptions. I don't really understand what Eric was saying, but I'm sure he knows more about this than me. The type mismatch error above seems to be a red herring, I don't know why that wasn't unifying.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 23:18):

@Julian Külshammer My commit fixed the erorrs in the file but made the code worse (I added a bunch of type ascriptions). Another fix is to replace your `instance [semiring R]: semiring (mv_polynomial σ R) := add_monoid_algebra.semiring`

with

```
def foo [semiring R]: semiring (mv_polynomial σ R) := add_monoid_algebra.semiring
attribute [instance, priority 90] foo
```

#### Kevin Buzzard (Feb 28 2021 at 23:21):

I see that there are errors in other files after my type ascription fix so I think the correct / easiest thing to do is to just add the instance at a lower priority. I have no feeling about the problems this will cause elsewhere.

#### Julian Külshammer (Mar 01 2021 at 08:27):

@Kevin Buzzard I managed to break it again by moving the definition of the semiring homomorphism C to the semiring section. The proof fails at the same places which you fixed earlier and then reverted, e.g. `eval\2_eta`

. I pushed to show what is happening. This only happened when moving the definitions of monomial and C, i.e. ll. 117--128.

#### Julian Külshammer (Mar 01 2021 at 20:24):

I made some progress, at the moment I can see two similar problems to what we had before in `ring_theory.polynomial.basic`

and two deterministic timeouts in `ring_theory.polynomial.homogeneous`

. I'm still curious what the problem is here if anyone has some more insight.

Last updated: May 16 2021 at 21:11 UTC