Skip to content

fix: correctly handle explicit monotonicity proofs in mutual definitions #8763

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
nomeata merged 2 commits into from
Jun 13, 2025
Merged

fix: correctly handle explicit monotonicity proofs in mutual definitions #8763

nomeata merged 2 commits into from
Jun 13, 2025

Conversation

@cppio
Copy link
Contributor

@cppio cppio commented Jun 13, 2025

This PR corrects the handling of explicit monotonicity proofs for mutual partial_fixpoint definitions.

@cppio
Copy link
Contributor Author

cppio commented Jun 13, 2025

changelog-language

@github-actions github-actions bot added the changelog-language Language features and metaprograms label Jun 13, 2025
@cppio cppio marked this pull request as ready for review June 13, 2025 05:23
@github-actions github-actions bot added the toolchain-available A toolchain is available for this PR, at leanprover/lean4-pr-releases:pr-release-NNNN label Jun 13, 2025
@leanprover-community-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

leanprover-community-bot commented Jun 13, 2025

Mathlib CI status (docs):

  • ❗ Batteries CI can not be attempted yet, as the nightly-testing-2025-06-12 tag does not exist there yet. We will retry when you push more commits. If you rebase your branch onto nightly-with-mathlib, Batteries CI should run now. You can force Mathlib CI using the force-mathlib-ci label. (2025-06-13 05:25:10)

nomeata
nomeata reviewed Jun 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Collaborator

@nomeata nomeata left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for helping out! Why did the previous code, with inferred types, break?

@cppio
Copy link
Contributor Author

cppio commented Jun 13, 2025

When a function is passed as proof of monotonicity, the inferred type of that function isn't monotone f but is rather the unfolding of monotone f, since the inferred type of a lam is a forall.

@nomeata nomeata added this pull request to the merge queue Jun 13, 2025
Merged via the queue into leanprover:master with commit 5390cdb Jun 13, 2025
14 checks passed
@cppio cppio deleted the mutual_monotonicity branch June 13, 2025 15:20
algebraic-dev pushed a commit to algebraic-dev/lean4 that referenced this pull request Jun 18, 2025
@cppio @algebraic-dev
fix: correctly handle explicit monotonicity proofs in mutual definiti…
500c7c3 
…ons (leanprover#8763)

This PR corrects the handling of explicit `monotonicity` proofs for
mutual `partial_fixpoint` definitions.
wkrozowski pushed a commit to wkrozowski/lean4 that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2025
@cppio @wkrozowski
fix: correctly handle explicit monotonicity proofs in mutual definiti…
522aa9a 
…ons (leanprover#8763)

This PR corrects the handling of explicit `monotonicity` proofs for
mutual `partial_fixpoint` definitions.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@nomeata nomeata nomeata left review comments

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

changelog-language Language features and metaprograms toolchain-available A toolchain is available for this PR, at leanprover/lean4-pr-releases:pr-release-NNNN

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@cppio @leanprover-community-bot @nomeata