Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @kiwiyou, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request introduces a new document containing the solution to problem 2.14 from Homotopy Type Theory. The solution provides a formal proof demonstrating that if the equality reflection rule is assumed, then any path from an element to itself is equivalent to the reflexivity path, which is a fundamental concept in HoTT related to the notion of types being sets. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
The pull request provides a solution for problem 2.14 from HoTT. However, the provided proof is incorrect due to a fundamental type mismatch in the main argument. The notation is also very difficult to follow. I've provided a detailed comment with a suggested replacement for the proof that corrects the logic and improves clarity.
fb0900d to
2f0ee74
Compare
No description provided.