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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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
feat(GroupTheory/MaximalSubgroups): define maximal subgroups #20499
feat(GroupTheory/MaximalSubgroups): define maximal subgroups #20499
Changes from 4 commits
f4d8794
282ad06
7919fa7
5302e88
a4d8fda
cabcf30
78859c8
1271c2e
ef379b2
7f55af1
fb64f01
6c36146
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.
I have the same thought and so I'm not absolutely convinced about the new definition.
However I am convinced that the changes to the files
Order/Atoms.lean
andIdeal/Maximal.lean
are desirable. How would you feel about splitting out a new PR with just those changes for quick merging?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.
@ocfnash I agree that it would be unpleasant to rewrite the same bit of code for all sub-structures. I have the feeling that the path we're taking is to give a new definition for each maximal substructure which is
IsCoatom
and then we're fearing defeq abuse and we develop a new API instead of relying on that ofIsCoatom
. Am I wrong?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 think you're right. The paths I see are:
abbrev
for each substructure + write API to reduce temptation for defeq abuseabbrev
for each substructure, no API, permit defeq abuseabbrev
is not really doing anything and just spell all our lemmas usingIsCoatom
.IMHO it's subjective but I'd tend toward 3 or maybe 2.
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.
Well, I would probably go for 2., telling ourselves that
defeq
abuse is a problem if thedef
really contains stuff (so,defeq
abuse forIsCoatom
is problematic), but it is ok if it is just anabbrev
. In a sense, thedef
at play here isIsCoatom
and it is for that one that we should build the API and use that instead of thedef
. If then something is anabbrev
ofIsCoatom
we will use the API there and that will be helping avoidingdefeq
abuse. Of course 3. is also OK, but I think that is mathematically pleasant to call a maximal ideal/subgroup as such rather than a "coatomic ideal".If we all agree (@AntoineChambert-Loir : what's your take on the matter?), shall we start by this PR and simply rely on the
IsCoatom
API (perhaps explaining in the doc what is going on, possibly pointing to this discussion)?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.
The downside of 3 is that then we don't get to use typeclass inference for maximal ideals.
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'll do that this afternoon.
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.
#20736
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.
Regarding the main goal of the PR : It was only used for an alternative characterization of primitive actions (#12052) that involves maximal subgroups. Let me first see if it is possible to formulate this as
IsCoatom
in that context.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.
Good news: I could remove all explicit mentions of maximal subgroups in #12052,
IsCoatom _
worked fine.That doesn't make this PR absolutely obsolete, but leaves more time to think about what is necessary.
Ultimately, I would like to see formalized theorems of O'Nan-Scott and Aschbacher, Liebeck… that describe the maximal subgroups of Sn, An and geometric groups. But maybe even then,
IsCoatom
will suffice.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.
After some thought I came to the opinion that perhaps the situation maximal ideal vs maximal subgroup is not really symmetric. To my knowledge, there is a bunch of ancillary notions and constructions associated to that of maximal ideal (localization, residue field, maximal spectrum, etc.) whereas maximal subgroup are "only"
CoAtoms
among subgroups: certainly there are many results about them but I feel that they fewer things are "built out of them". I am sure @AntoineChambert-Loir will promptly prove me wrong, given his knowledge, but if I happen to be correct I would argue that keeping around the assumptionIsCoatom
(or simply introducing anabbrev
and living withdefeq
) should be ok, and I would suggest to remove from this PR the boilerplate pertaining to maximal subgroups.