Hello. I was going through this paper (https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01391578/file/article.pdf) on the formal proof of the Lax-Milgram theorem, and came across this line on page 3:
"Note that in practice, we rely on a version of this theorem on CompleteNormedModule
, where is_eq
can be replaced by the native equality and the phi_distanceable
hypothesis can be removed."
Could someone please explain on why this is true?
Relevant definitions are:
Require Import Reals Coquelicot.Coquelicot.
Context {V : CompleteSpace}.
Variable f: V -> V.
Variable phi: V -> Prop.
Hypothesis phi_distanceable:
forall (x y:V), phi x -> phi y-> exists M, 0 <= M /\ ball x M y.
Definition is_eq:V→V→Prop := fun a b⇒forall eps:posreal,ball a eps b
I'm guessing this has something to do with classical reasoning. In a CompleteNormedModule
, one can replace phi_distanceable
by exhibiting an explicit M = dist x y
where dist
is the metric induced by the norm. Have I understood this correctly?
@Koundinya Vajjha in the paper you are reading,
is_eq
can be read as "arbitrarily closed", which under any separation assumption (from T0) implies equality, in particular normed modules are T2 hence T0 hence is_eq
impllies equality...phi_distanceable
can be removed in normed modules, because the norm being finite implies any two point are at finite distance from each other.Thank you @Cyril Cohen !
Last updated: Oct 13 2024 at 01:02 UTC