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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
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
[Merged by Bors] - feat: Lipschitz extensions of maps into l^infty #5107
[Merged by Bors] - feat: Lipschitz extensions of maps into l^infty #5107
Changes from 4 commits
6638be9
2c8a90f
108f22c
5ea801b
5bae036
736ad9b
9b23db4
693799f
3f74b0a
79778cc
1ce9f2c
f91fae3
2a52137
ba4c9cd
521d2a9
6ed96a0
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you write
refine' ⟨fun i ↦ ⟨swap g i, _⟩, _, _⟩
, then you can movehf_extb
as an extra goal from the refine.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the other two refactors, but I think that it is clearer if we explicitly name our witness and show how it is constructed. I think it would take longer for someone to go through the proof if they have to make the realization themself that swap g i is the desired extension. One sticking point in the proof for us was also this translation back and forth between functions from alpha to iota to R and functions from alpha to l^infty(iota, R). Here it is clear that we get from a function from alpha to iota to R to one from alpha to l^infty(iota, R) by bundling it with a certificate that it is bound. If we instead leave it as inferred and it pops up as an extra goal I think that is more confusing. Also, with no explicit mention of f_ext the term hf_extb ("hypothesis that f_ext is bounded") would have to be changed and given that I cannot think of a meaningful way to name it I think that that is strong evidence that the way the proof is structured now is fairly natural.
However, I am very new and if I've completely misunderstood this suggestion or there is a general consensus on this type of issue I'm certainly open to the change.
Now that we have replaced all mentions of f_ext with swap g i, I do think we should replace f_ext' with f_ext.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You wouldn't have to choose a new name for
hf_extb
, since it would just become an extra goal:But I do see what you're saying about how it's nice to make it clear what the extension is, and I'm fine with keeping the current proof structure. I do like renaming
f_ext'
tof_ext
, and usingrefine'
rather thanrefine
:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah I see! Thanks for all the helpful comments!