Skip to content

Make Relation.Binary.Structures.IsStrictTotalOrder consistent with the hierarchy #2135

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

Closed
MatthewDaggitt opened this issue Oct 12, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #2137
Closed
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@MatthewDaggitt
Copy link
Contributor

While trying to polish off #2098 I've run into the issue that the structure IsStrictTotalOrder doesn't inherit directly from IsStrictPartialOrder. Instead it has flattened fields that try to avoid having to have the user re-prove irreflexivity.

This has various irritating effects including multiple non-identical copies of certain proofs such as isStrictPartialOrder in StrictTotalOrder bundle.

We did have exactly the same problem with lattices in #1108, which we fixed by adding biased versions of the records that replicated the old structure. We should take advantage of v2.0 and implement the same solution for IsStrictTotalOrder

@jamesmckinna
Copy link
Contributor

Interesting!
I'm even more glad you took charge of #2098 , as I wouldn't have had the (historical) insights to raise, never mind tackle, this issue ;-)

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants