Zulip Chat Archive

Stream: maths

Topic: multiplicative finsupp


view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 10:29):

I'm trying to stress test my adjunctions code. A natural example is mv_polynomial being left adjoint to forget. This adjunction is actually a composite of two adjunctions: the free monoid construction, and monoid rings. While trying to write these things down, I got stuck in the whole additive-multiplicative business again. So, let's forget about this motivation for now.

Has anyone ever attempted to turn data/finsupp into a file that supports both multiplicative and additive coefficients? Are there any expected problems? Or is this just something that has to be done by someone?

view this post on Zulip Mario Carneiro (Jan 22 2019 at 10:32):

use multiplicative A for the coefficients

view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 10:43):

I know I can do that. But it becomes pretty messy. And it feels to me like it defeats the purpose of the add/mul distinction.

view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 10:44):

All of a sudden I'm having proofs like

{ map_one := map_domain_zero, map_mul := λ _ _, map_domain_add }

which creates cognitive dissonance.

view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 10:45):

I think that if we want to use multiplicative (or additive, I don't care) we should just use it everywhere.

view this post on Zulip Mario Carneiro (Jan 22 2019 at 10:45):

well we did, and now you want the other one

view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 10:47):

No, I mean everywhere in mathlib.

view this post on Zulip Mario Carneiro (Jan 22 2019 at 10:47):

I have argued since day 1 that it would be much nicer to use add for group theory and forget about mul except in specialized circumstances, but mathematicians get hissy about non-commutative addition

view this post on Zulip Kevin Buzzard (Jan 22 2019 at 11:04):

Mathematicians definitely want both.

view this post on Zulip Kevin Buzzard (Jan 22 2019 at 11:04):

Non-commutative addition is the least of our worries here.

view this post on Zulip Mario Carneiro (Jan 22 2019 at 11:19):

If I said "all groups must use addition", what exactly would be the downside? AFAICT there are very few places where you actually need multiplicative groups besides "it looks better"

view this post on Zulip Mario Carneiro (Jan 22 2019 at 11:20):

by contrast it is quite common to use the group structure of additive groups embedded in rings and other things

view this post on Zulip Mario Carneiro (Jan 22 2019 at 11:21):

Note that a ring does not have a multiplicative group; multiplication is not a group operation. Instead there is an associated structure, the "units group", that is a group

view this post on Zulip Kevin Buzzard (Jan 22 2019 at 11:30):

If you said "all groups must use addition" then mathematicians would consistently be utterly confused about why the unit group of a ring had group law addition. I guess there's nothing stopping this convention -- equally, there is nothing stopping the convention that you use a little heart symbol. It's just that mathematicians would then find this stuff even harder to understand. Notation conveys meaning and notation which mathematicians have fixed on is very hard to change. I personally loathe the standard symbol for quadratic residues / non-residues, because it's a fraction in a bracket -- but there's very little I can do about this.

view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 11:38):

We have proof irrelevance. Why can't we have notation irrelevance. (I know that the current implementation via type classes makes it hard. But that just means we need a better solution.)

view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 12:12):

@Mario Carneiro I can see why you would want all groups to be additive (although adding invertible matrices feels very wrong). But with monoids you wouldn't have a clean solution, right? Every ring gives you two monoids, one for addition, the other for multiplication. I'm interested in knowing what you would do there.

view this post on Zulip Kevin Buzzard (Jan 22 2019 at 16:00):

I thought about this more. A mathematician has a fixed notation for a ring, so you can't change it -- it uses + and *. And a ring is a group under + and the units of a ring are a group under *, and these come up again and again, so you can't change these either :-/ And the point is that in mathematics we are capable of rewriting these group axioms from + to * seamlessly because it is true that it works fine, yet Lean struggles to do it seamlessly. There clearly is some sort of a problem here, but I don't think mathematicians will accept removal of * because it goes the wrong way. For us, the units of RR are a subset of RR. This is not how it works in DTT and somehow we need a better solution :-/

view this post on Zulip Johan Commelin (Jan 22 2019 at 16:01):

How about End(V)? We'll use \circ instead of *, without blinking an eye.

view this post on Zulip Reid Barton (Jan 22 2019 at 16:02):

A unit is just an automorphism of a ring as a module over itself, what's the problem?

view this post on Zulip Reid Barton (Jan 22 2019 at 16:03):

(https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3870088/a-monad-is-just-a-monoid-in-the-category-of-endofunctors-whats-the-problem)


Last updated: May 19 2021 at 00:40 UTC