Update examples in Section 5.1 for clarity - #664
Conversation
|
Thanks for the PR, and welcome! You've spotted a genuine mismatch — the docstring and the Lean really don't agree. But I think the fix should go the other way round: the docstring is right and the Lean term is wrong. The text in §5.1 reads:
The house convention in this repo is that the Lean statement is the thing that should be made faithful to the book, and docstrings record what the book says. So rather than changing the docstring to example (ε:ℚ) : ¬ ε.Steady ((fun n:ℕ ↦ (2 ^ n:ℚ) ):Sequence) := by sorryThe neighbouring example is a good check that the indexing works out: If you'd like to update the PR along those lines that'd be great — otherwise I'm happy to take it from here. Either way, thanks for reading closely enough to catch it. |
No description provided.