Skip to content
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

If q : ℚ is in the lower cut of a real, real-ℚ q is less than that real #1294

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

lowasser
Copy link
Contributor

@lowasser lowasser commented Feb 7, 2025

And the analogous statement for upper cuts.

Copy link
Collaborator

@fredrik-bakke fredrik-bakke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is good practice to also include the dual statement in the same PR, as it seems just as likely that that lemma would be useful. Would you mind adding that to this PR? I.e., if a rational is in the upper cut of x, then it is strictly greater than x.

@@ -235,6 +235,27 @@ module _
tr (is-in-upper-cut-ℝ x) (inv (neg-neg-ℚ p)) p-in-ux))
```

### If a rational `q` is in the lower cut of real `x`, `real-ℚ q < x`
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
### If a rational `q` is in the lower cut of real `x`, `real-ℚ q < x`
### If a rational is in the lower cut of `x`, then it is strictly less than `x`

Comment on lines +242 to +244
{l : Level}
(q : ℚ)
(x : ℝ l)
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
{l : Level}
(q : ℚ)
(x : ℝ l)
{l : Level} (q : ℚ) (x : ℝ l)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants