# Zulip Chat Archive

## Stream: maths

### Topic: Is mathlib broken currently? (no)

#### Kevin Buzzard (Sep 05 2018 at 22:13):

import ring_theory.ideals def is_fg {α β} [ring α] [module α β] (s : set β) [is_submodule s] : Prop := ∃ t : finset β, _root_.span ↑t = s /- maximum class-instance resolution depth has been reached (the limit can be increased by setting option 'class.instance_max_depth') (the class-instance resolution trace can be visualized by setting option 'trace.class_instances') -/

I think I'm up to date. This is from the Noetherian branch of community mathlib but it doesn't seem to work with (non-community) mathlib master either.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Sep 05 2018 at 22:14):

hmm on the other hand I just managed to compile mathlib master so I don't know what's going on.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Sep 05 2018 at 22:15):

It's the coercion from finset beta to set beta which seems to cause the loop

#### Johannes Hölzl (Sep 05 2018 at 22:53):

`(2) ?x_7 : has_coe (finset β) ?x_5 := @quotient_ring.has_coe ?x_9 ?x_10 ?x_11 ?x_12`

ouch, doesn't seam to be a good coercion rule...

#### Johannes Hölzl (Sep 05 2018 at 23:01):

not this one but the `quotient_module`

one

#### Johannes Hölzl (Sep 05 2018 at 23:04):

it should work now

#### Mario Carneiro (Sep 05 2018 at 23:20):

This is the same kind of problem as in `option.has_coe`

. You can't coerce out of an arbitrary type in `has_coe`

, you have to use `has_coe_t`

directly

#### Johannes Hölzl (Sep 05 2018 at 23:23):

hm, then it needs to be changed further. I just fixed the implicit instead of instance for the out_param problem.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Sep 06 2018 at 06:47):

I'm sick of not being able to understand and debug this stuff. What happened in practice is that I wanted to do a bit more work on the noetherian branch yesterday evening but instead spent 30 minutes pulling, rebasing and compiling mathlib because I could see the error and I could not see how to fix it, I could only see how to try and get up to date and hope the error would go away. I would like to learn how to diagnose and fix what just happened and I still find these traces intimidating. Because I don't understand the traces I spent some time looking through recent mathlib commits to try and spot some suspicious looking instances but I couldn't find any. My next step would have been to go through each commit in mathlib, because I know the code worked last week and it didn't work yesterday, to try and find the offending one, but I suspect that neither of you did this.

OK so I still have a borked noetherian branch [because I didn't update yet]. Presumably I start with `set_option trace.class_instances true`

. I now get 100+ lines of output. Here is a random snippet:

[class_instances] (13) ?x_94 : ring ?x_93 := @cau_seq.ring ?x_97 ?x_98 ?x_99 ?x_100 ?x_101 ?x_102 [class_instances] (14) ?x_98 : discrete_linear_ordered_field ?x_97 := rat.discrete_linear_ordered_field [class_instances] (14) ?x_100 : ring ?x_99 := _inst_1 [class_instances] (14) ?x_102 : @is_absolute_value ℚ rat.discrete_linear_ordered_field α _inst_1 ?x_101 := @abs_is_absolute_value ?x_103 ?x_104 failed is_def_eq [class_instances] (14) ?x_100 : ring ?x_99 := @cau_seq.ring ?x_103 ?x_104 ?x_105 ?x_106 ?x_107 ?x_108 [class_instances] (15) ?x_104 : discrete_linear_ordered_field ?x_103 := rat.discrete_linear_ordered_field [class_instances] (15) ?x_106 : ring ?x_105 := _inst_1 [class_instances] (15) ?x_108 : @is_absolute_value ℚ rat.discrete_linear_ordered_field α _inst_1 ?x_107 := @abs_is_absolute_value ?x_109 ?x_110 failed is_def_eq

That's not the relevant part, because I have no idea how to read this in detail or what the relevant part is. Let me instead say what I see when I look at this output. Firstly the numbers in brackets near the beginning of each line ((13),(14),(15)) are slowly increasing, which probably means there's a loop. Looking more carefully it seems that other than these numbers and the names of metavariables, the output is periodic with period 4, which means there really is a loop. Looking at the output in more detail, I see `?x_100 : ring ?x_99`

and I know from the experience that this is the line which makes Mario say "aah, something is wrong, because that should never happen". I still don't understand why, because I don't understand what the output represents. What does it represent? Lean is trying to prove that something is a ring -- that doesn't sound too bad to me; sometimes it is supposed to do that. So far I have managed to diagnose that something is wrong and I need to ask for help.

The full 200+ line output is here:

https://gist.github.com/kbuzzard/e113b65c54e35bff839fb88365811ef5

There is now no hurry on this (hopefully) but if at some point someone could explain how to get from it to the diagnosis above (which I must admit I do not fully understand -- but I see the words "it should work now" which I am very grateful for -- thanks Johannes!), I'd be much obliged.

#### Kevin Buzzard (Sep 06 2018 at 09:03):

PS I can confirm that the noetherian branch is now building again (and also that I am unsure whether I should be merging or rebasing when I update mathlib-community from mathlib master and then update the noetherian branch, or indeed whether it even matters).

Last updated: May 11 2021 at 16:22 UTC