You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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 ;-)
While trying to polish off #2098 I've run into the issue that the structure
IsStrictTotalOrder
doesn't inherit directly fromIsStrictPartialOrder
. 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
inStrictTotalOrder
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 forIsStrictTotalOrder
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: