Skip to content

Conversation

jkingdon
Copy link
Contributor

@jkingdon jkingdon commented Oct 2, 2025

I have read over #4796 and attempted to incorporate the suggestions made on that issue (although the more I looked at it, the more it seemed like a slightly bigger rewording seemed to be called for).

Glad to discuss specific points but I guess for now I'll just refer to the discussion there and the commit message I have added in this pull request. I have kept @david-a-wheeler 's changes and mine in separate commits in case that makes it easier to review.

david-a-wheeler and others added 2 commits October 2, 2025 07:25
The ax-mulf comment is confusing.
Its text "is not a bona fide axiom for complex numbers"
makes it sound like this statement can't be an axiom or that
Metamath can't handle such axioms, which is obviously untrue.
Also, the cited paper doesn't justify this axiom.

This commit attempts to clarify the comment for ax-mulf
in the hopes of making it clearer.

Signed-off-by: David A. Wheeler <[email protected]>
This is in response to discussion on github and includes:
- focus on the consequences of using it or not, with less language about
  which we prefer (because there doesn't seem to be a consensus about
  that).
- compare with other operations
- refer to mulcl rather than ax-mulcl directly
- mention mpomulf
Comment on lines +84300 to +84301
$( Multiplication is an operation on the complex numbers. This is the
construction-dependent version of ~ ax-mulf and it should not be
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

should ax-mulf be mulcl here?

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants