fix: disambiguate Proposition 9.3.14 Verso labels

[Chessing234]

Summary

• Disambiguate the seven Proposition 9.3.14 / Exercise 9.3.2 Verso docs with part suffixes (add/sub/max/min/smul/mul/div)
• Keep the proposition name folded in: (Limit laws for functions, sub), etc.

Test plan

• CI build green

[teorth]

The (add)/(sub)/(max)/(min)/(smul)/(mul)/(div) disambiguators are a good choice here — descriptive suffixes read better than letters for the limit laws, since the text states them as a list of displayed identities rather than lettered parts.

One request before merging: this drops the proposition's name. Every one of the seven goes from

/-- Proposition 9.3.14 (Limit laws for functions) / Exercise 9.3.2 -/

to

/-- Proposition 9.3.14 (sub) / Exercise 9.3.2 -/

"Limit laws for functions" is the name the text gives Proposition 9.3.14, and the house style elsewhere keeps it alongside the part — e.g. Proposition 5.4.7(a) (order trichotomy) / Exercise 5.4.2 and Proposition 2.2.12 (Basic properties of order for natural numbers) / Exercise 2.2.3. Could you fold the disambiguator in rather than replace, e.g.

/-- Proposition 9.3.14 (Limit laws for functions, sub) / Exercise 9.3.2 -/

Happy with any equivalent phrasing that retains the name.

[Chessing234]

folded the part suffixes into the limit laws name — e.g. (Limit laws for functions, sub).

[Chessing234]

@teorth friendly ping — part suffixes are folded into the limit-laws name now if you want to take another look.