Open SkySkimmer opened 8 years ago
Upon a quick reading it looks like we could replace the offending definition with f'(rat q) = f q
, could we not?
Then in (ii) the induction hypothesis is f'(x n) ~(L*e - L*n) f' (rat q) = f q
and we need to prove f' (lim x) = lim (fun e => f' (x (e/L))) ~(L*e) ~ f q
.
If we reorder things we can use 11.3.36 to do this.
Ugh, we're committed to not reordering theorems. What to do?
We could do some TeX hackery to reorder the theorems without renumbering them...
I thought humor was not allowed on GitHub.
If we only need to apply this lemma when f is given as Q -> Q, then we could just state and prove it in that case and make the more general version an exercise.
Did we decide what to do about this?
11.3.15 says
Suppose f : Q → R is Lipschitz, then there exists f' : R -> R Lipschitz such that forall q, f'(rat q) = f q
, but then in the proof it saysfor q : Q define f'(rat q) = rat (f q)
, ie usingf : Q -> Q
. This also breaks point (ii) (and (iii) since that's just symmetry of (ii)) asf'(lim x) ~Le f'(rat q)
isf'(lim x) ~Le f q
which cannot be proven by constructor of~
.The explicit references to this lemma appear to be extending functions
f : Q -> Q
so the error seems to be in the statement of the lemma. I haven't checked in depth though.