Are you sure that there is no standard definition of this concept in mathematics that we should follow?


On 19/07/2016 12:03, Manuel Eberl wrote:

as some of you may already know, I am currently in the process of resructing
Isabelle's definitions of prime numbers. Before these changes, we had the
concept of "multiplicity". This was defined to be the multiplicity of a prime
factor in the prime decomposition of a natural number or an integer. The
multiplicity of a non-prime was defined to be 0.

I have now created an alternative definition of "multiplicity" which is simply
defined as "the highest power that is still a divisor" (as long as this is
well-defined); e.g. the multiplicity of -4 in 64 would be 3.

I see three possibilities:
1. redefine my "new", more general multiplicity to the "old" multiplicity
2. keep both notions of multiplicity around with different names
3. replace the old multilicity with the new one and adapt all lemmas accordingly

Currently, I tend towards the last options. Are there any other opinions on 


isabelle-dev mailing list

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

isabelle-dev mailing list

Reply via email to