[Theories, SplitRO] remove requirement of axiom ofpairK
#773
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Removed instantiation from the ChaChaPoly example (the lemma is a priori still needed there, so it was not removed, but just moved where appropriate)
Contributor
Author
|
Had to make minor adjustments for the ChaCha example as well, which depends on this. |
Member
|
@Cameron-Low , could we have a codepos for "after the last line"? I assume that "before the last line + 1" would already work here? |
strub
approved these changes
May 15, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The theory
SplitRO.SplitCodomfrom the standard library needlessly requires a bijection between the two spaces of interest, where only a left (or right, depending on your viewpoint) inverse is needed.I admit willingly that the modifications are not very elegant, so I might be missing out on two ways to do it more cleanly:
aliasstatement at the end of a program?transitivity(asconseqcannot work here)? (This transformation is necessary as it allowsrndsem*to only keep the right variables, which ultimately gives the same support on both sides).