## Stream: maths

### Topic: vector spaces vs modules over a field

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 07:25):

I have a module over a field. How do I upgrade it to a vector_space? We can't have a generic instance, because we would immediately get loops (every vector_space is already a module).

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 07:26):

I really wish this would be transparent, because there is no content at all.

#### Chris Hughes (Jun 18 2018 at 09:18):

Something like this?

import linear_algebra.basic

variables {F : Type*} [field F] {M : Type*} [m : module F M]

instance Mvector_space : vector_space F M := {..m}


#### Gabriel Ebner (Jun 18 2018 at 09:20):

Maybe make vector_space a reducible definition for module?

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:25):

@Chris Hughes That is tricky right? Because then we get cycles in the type class system.

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:25):

@Gabriel Ebner How do I make a class reducible?

#### Chris Hughes (Jun 18 2018 at 09:28):

I agree it does seem a little silly. I'm not sure we'd get cycles any more than we would by any other use of extends. This is a little weird because there aren't any extra axioms, but extends is used all the time without any problems.

#### Chris Hughes (Jun 18 2018 at 09:29):

In fact just making what I just wrote a global instance is probably a good idea.

#### Gabriel Ebner (Jun 18 2018 at 09:29):

Not class, just @[reducible] def vector_space (α : Type u) (β : Type v) [field α] := module α β

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:30):

But then we can't use the type class instance anymore...

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:31):

Chris, Hmmm, I thought introducing cycles was a bad idea. I think we try to avoid them.

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:31):

extends does not introduce cycles. So I don't understand your point.

#### Chris Hughes (Jun 18 2018 at 09:34):

The definition of vector_space just extends module with no extra axioms. So it won't introduce cycles.

#### Chris Hughes (Jun 18 2018 at 09:34):

If extends doesn't introduce cycles.

#### Gabriel Ebner (Jun 18 2018 at 09:34):

@Chris Hughes There is the cycle module -> vector_space -> module.

#### Gabriel Ebner (Jun 18 2018 at 09:35):

(If you add the instance.)

Oh I see.

#### Gabriel Ebner (Jun 18 2018 at 09:35):

@Johan Commelin I just tried replacing the vector_space class by a definition and everything seems to work. Why do you think it would break type class instances?

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:37):

I mean, then I can't any longer write {V : Type} [vector_space real V] in my theorems. Right?

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:37):

Because the [] only work for classes.

#### Chris Hughes (Jun 18 2018 at 09:38):

Maybe it will just interpret it as module real V

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:38):

The reason that nothing breaks after your change, is because mathlib has not really used vector spaces yet. It only defines them...

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:39):

Chris, hmm, that might be true! Then it might work!

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 09:41):

@Gabriel Ebner Ok, I see that in fact on the line below there is already [vector_space ...] and it seems to work. You are right. Thanks!

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:42):

IIRC I set this up before (vector_space as reducible def) and @Johannes Hölzl reverted it to the current wrapper class style, so there was probably a reason although I forget what it is.

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:43):

I think the preferred solution is just to have instances of vector_space for all your vector spaces

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 11:47):

Ok, but aren't you scared that this creates cycles?

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:47):

Chris's instance will create cycles. I'm not suggesting that

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 11:48):

Or, you mean, explicitly saying

instance foobar : vector_space real V := {}


#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 11:48):

whenever V is a module over the reals.

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:48):

depends on what V is there

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:48):

if V is an arbitrary module over the reals, then no

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:49):

if you replace V with my_R_vec then yes

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:50):

If you want to deal with an arbitrary real vector space, the assumption should say vector_space not module

#### Chris Hughes (Jun 18 2018 at 11:50):

What happens if you have something like a vector space instance for polynomials over a field, but also a module instance for polynomials over a ring. Then you have cycles.

no

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:50):

that's perfectly okay

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:50):

that's a diamond not a cycle

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:51):

and the defeq constraint will be easy to satisfy here

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 11:55):

Mario, I am defining Lie algebras. They are modules over a ring with extra data and properties. But if my ring happens to be a field, then I want to prove extra things about my Lie algebras (using things like dimension etc...). How should I explain to Lean that if I have [field R] I want to upgrade my [lie_algebra L] to a [vector_space R L] instead of just the module R L that it extends?

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:59):

you can have an instance for that

#### Mario Carneiro (Jun 18 2018 at 11:59):

instance [field R] [lie_algebra L] : vector_space R L

ok, I see

#### Johan Commelin (Jun 18 2018 at 12:01):

That's a good solution, I guess (-;

#### Johannes Hölzl (Jun 18 2018 at 18:53):

I don't remember why I changed it to a class maybe I had a problem in combination with the inout parameter. We can change it back and see what happens.

Last updated: May 11 2021 at 16:22 UTC