feat: BitVec unsigned order theoretic results
#5297
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
temporarily deployed
to
lean-lang.org/lean4/doc
github-actions
bot
added
the
toolchain-available
|
Mathlib CI status (docs):
|
tobiasgrosser
pushed a commit
to opencompl/lean4
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2024
Proves that `<` and `<=` on `BitVec` are (strict) (total) partial orders. This is required for the `UInt` as `BitVec` refactor. This does open the question how to state these theorems "correctly" for `BitVec`, we have both `<` living in `Prop` and `BitVec.ult` living in `Bool`. We might of course say to always use `<` but: Once we start adding `IntX` we need to prove the same results for `BitVec.slt` to provide an equivalent API. So it would appear that it is unavoidable to have a `= true` variant of these theorems there? Question answered: Use `<` and `slt`.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Proves that
<and<=onBitVecare (strict) (total) partial orders. This is required for theUIntasBitVecrefactor.This does open the question how to state these theorems "correctly" for
BitVec, we have both<living inPropandBitVec.ultliving inBool. We might of course say to always use<but: Once we start addingIntXwe need to prove the same results forBitVec.sltto provide an equivalent API. So it would appear that it is unavoidable to have a= truevariant of these theorems there?Question answered: Use
<andslt.