Zulip Chat Archive
Stream: maths
Topic: euclidean domain
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 13:53):
Euclidean domains are extending integral domains, but the entire file doesn't use this. We could just as well extend comm_ring
. @Kevin Buzzard Do you know if every Euclidean ring is automatically an integral domain?
Chris Hughes (Nov 15 2018 at 13:57):
I think the following theorems imply they are
lemma mul_div_cancel (a) {b : α} (b0 : b ≠ 0) : (a * b) / b = a := by rw mul_comm; exact mul_div_cancel_left a b0 @[simp] lemma zero_div {a : α} (a0 : a ≠ 0) : 0 / a = 0 := by simpa only [zero_mul] using mul_div_cancel 0 a0
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 13:57):
Good catch!
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 13:58):
Chris and Lean helped me prove a theorem!
Chris Hughes (Nov 15 2018 at 14:18):
Wait, I was wrong. There's no way to prove zero_ne_one
.
Reid Barton (Nov 15 2018 at 14:21):
Both a theorem, and a counterexample :slight_smile:
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 14:33):
Haha, sure. Zerology bites me again.
Chris Hughes (Nov 15 2018 at 16:42):
Maybe it should extend nonzero_comm_ring
instead.
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 17:25):
Wouldn't that create a possibility for diamonds? Say we prove that integral closures are integral domains. And then for certain of those we prove that they are euclidean rings. And then this would give a new proof that those things are integral domains...
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 17:26):
Maybe we should just have euclidean.core
and then of_core
... that seems to be a common trick.
Chris Hughes (Nov 15 2018 at 17:30):
Yes, but they would be definitionally equal diamonds, which happen all the time and are fine.
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 17:31):
Why would they be defeq? Because integral_domain
extends comm_ring
by a Prop
?
Chris Hughes (Nov 15 2018 at 17:34):
But all the fields would be the same, because they all come from the same place ultimately.
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 17:35):
No we would have two different proofs that certain rings are integral domains...
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 17:35):
One coming from the fact that it's an integral closure, the other from the fact that it is a euclidean ring
Chris Hughes (Nov 15 2018 at 17:35):
Proofs are irrelevant.
The same thing happens with say, polynomials over an integral domain are an integral domain which means they're a ring, but polynomials over a ring are a ring. So there's two different paths, but they're defeq.
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 17:36):
Ok, good.
Chris Hughes (Nov 15 2018 at 17:43):
This worked when I tried changing integral domain.
example : euclidean_domain.integral_domain ℤ = linear_ordered_comm_ring.to_integral_domain := rfl
Johan Commelin (Nov 15 2018 at 18:41):
Great!
Last updated: Dec 20 2023 at 11:08 UTC