Fix the value error typo of AdamW's betas' valid values checking
Author: dourgey
Pull request: yes

# What does this PR do?

<!--
Congratulations! You've made it this far! You're not quite done yet though.

Once merged, your PR is going to appear in the release notes with the title you set, so make sure it's a great title that fully reflects the extent of your awesome contribution.

Then, please replace this with a description of the change and which issue is fixed (if applicable). Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies (if any) that are required for this change.

Once you're done, someone will review your PR shortly (see the section "Who can review?" below to tag some potential reviewers). They may suggest changes to make the code even better. If no one reviewed your PR after a week has passed, don't hesitate to post a new comment @-mentioning the same persons---sometimes notifications get lost.
-->

<!-- Remove if not applicable -->

Fixes the value error typo of AdamW's betas' valid values checking(`raise ValueError()`)
`"should be in  [0.0, 1.0["` -> `"should be in  [0.0, 1.0]"`


## Before submitting
- [x] This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the other checks if that's the case).
- [ ] Did you read the [contributor guideline](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#start-contributing-pull-requests),
      Pull Request section?
- [ ] Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue or the [forum](https://discuss.huggingface.co/)? Please add a link
      to it if that's the case.
- [ ] Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? Here are the
      [documentation guidelines](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/tree/master/docs), and
      [here are tips on formatting docstrings](https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/tree/master/docs#writing-source-documentation).
- [ ] Did you write any new necessary tests?


## Who can review?

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed. Feel free to tag
members/contributors who may be interested in your PR.

<!-- Your PR will be replied to more quickly if you can figure out the right person to tag with @

 If you know how to use git blame, that is the easiest way, otherwise, here is a rough guide of **who to tag**.
 Please tag fewer than 3 people.

Models:

- albert, bert, xlm: @LysandreJik
- blenderbot, bart, marian, pegasus, encoderdecoder,  t5: @patrickvonplaten, @patil-suraj
- longformer, reformer, transfoxl, xlnet: @patrickvonplaten
- fsmt: @stas00
- funnel: @sgugger
- gpt2: @patrickvonplaten, @LysandreJik
- rag: @patrickvonplaten, @lhoestq
- tensorflow: @LysandreJik

Library:

- benchmarks: @patrickvonplaten
- deepspeed: @stas00
- ray/raytune: @richardliaw, @amogkam
- text generation: @patrickvonplaten
- tokenizers: @n1t0, @LysandreJik
- trainer: @sgugger
- pipelines: @LysandreJik

Documentation: @sgugger

HF projects:

- datasets: [different repo](https://github.com/huggingface/datasets)
- rust tokenizers: [different repo](https://github.com/huggingface/tokenizers)

Examples:

- maintained examples (not research project or legacy): @sgugger, @patil-suraj
- research_projects/bert-loses-patience: @JetRunner
- research_projects/distillation: @VictorSanh

 -->


Comments:
> The test asserts that betas[0] < 1.0 so it seems like the current error is correct.

Thanks for your reply. 
 I mean, that there is a incorrect format of the interval indicates, as shown below:
> if I initialize a AdamW optimizer with error betas' values like [0.1, 2], there would raise a ValueError like this:
> ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/16441055/146630371-b295583f-36d6-417b-b700-b1b481dc9002.png)

It seems like a incorrect format of the interval indicates.  The correct format may should be `Invalid beta parameter: 2 - should be in [0.0, 1.0]`, but the current version is `Invalid beta parameter: 2 - should be in [0.0, 1.0[`. Is my understanding correct?

And after fixed, the error is shown as follows:
> ![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/16441055/146630632-c9c4c9a5-7168-49f6-be29-55e64104ea28.png)


No, both beta1 and beta2 are tests to be `< 1.0`, not `<= 1.0`, so the upper bound needs to be excluded. If you put 1.0 as a value, you will get the error.

> No, both beta1 and beta2 are tests to be `< 1.0`, not `<= 1.0`, so the upper bound needs to be excluded. If you put 1.0 as a value, you will get the error.

Yeah you are right. I made a mistake on this. Besides, my question is the error message `should be in [0.0, 1.0[` is a correct expression form of `[0.0, 1.0)` or a spelling mistake? I see that the expression form in original paper of Adam is:

![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/16441055/146893762-7fb15fd7-262d-4b18-a2d0-0f29ed7b1d81.png)

If it's a spelling mistake, I submit a new commit, please have a look, thanks a lot.

It's the European (or at least French, not sure about all the neighbors!) way of writing an interval without the upper bound, yours is the American way ;-) 

It's more inline with the paper so let's take yours.